no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

  • We're Hiring!
  • Help Center

paper cover thumbnail


Profile image of Delia Oprea

2019, MCDSARE: 2019 International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conference on the Dialogue between Sciences & Arts, Religion & Education DISCOURSE ANALYSIS IN SOCIAL MEDIA

Texts, language, communication should always be considered in their social context. Texts do not merely passively report upon the world, but they imbue it with meaning, shape perspectives and call the world into being. The relationship between text and ideology, and between the author and reader, appears to have changed because of the opportunities of public communication that have been extended by social media applications such as Twitter, Facebook, and blogs. Is also clear that new methods are required for data collection, as content takes new forms, and forms of design, images, and data has to be integrated with language much more in online than in offline. We use the term social media to refer to "Internet-based applications that build on the ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0", where Web 2.0 means that "content and applications are no longer created and published by individuals, but instead are continuously modified by all users in a participatory and collaborative fashion" (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). The aim of our research is to take into discussion different ways of approaching discourse analysis in this new online environment. Despite the large variety of platforms, some characteristics are common to many of them. Even if processes and structures of the public are subjects to change, the forms of discourse may be one of common points. Whilst the perspective on the system is one important aspect, another aspect is the perspective on the users who create the content. So, the three steps of the discourse have to be considered: production, form and reception. We try to seek out new models that are required to address how the technologies themselves come to shape the nature of content and discourse.

Related Papers

Review of Communication

Gwen Bouvier

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is a particular strand of discourse analysis that focuses on the role of language in society and in political processes, traditionally targeting texts produced by elites and powerful institutions, such as news and political speeches. The aim is to reveal discourses buried in language used to maintain power and sustain existing social relations. However, since the internet and social media have come to define much of the way that we communicate, this brings numerous challenges and also opportunities for CDA. The relationship between text and ideology, and between the author and reader, appears to have changed. It is also clear that new methods are required for data collection, as content takes new forms and also moves away from running texts to language that is much more integrated with forms of design, images, and data. Also, new models are required to address how the technologies themselves come to shape the nature of content and discourse.

discursive essay about social media pdf

Majid KhosraviNik

Mariza Georgalou

CHAREF Abou Soufyane

In this volume Michele Zappavigna lays the foundation for a forthcoming generation of work in internet linguistics, drawing on her training in social semiotics, linguistics and information technology. This necessarily involves discussion of how to gather data from Web 2.0, how to use corpus linguistics to process it, how to use functional linguistics to interpret it and how to use social semiotics to make sense of what is going on. The most dramatic turn here, as far as linguistics is concerned, is her interpersonal focus on ambient sociality. This she explores in terms of the way in which tweeters affi liate through searchable talk, demonstrating for the fi rst time in a large scale study how communities constitute themselves through shared values – where it’s not just interaction that matters but shared meaning and where what is being shared is feelings about ideas (not just the ideas themselves). This axiological orientation, based as it is on appraisal theory and quantitative analysis, goes a long way to balancing the ideational bias which has for so long delimited linguistics as a theory of writing and holds great promise for the evolution of a more social sensitive and socially responsible discipline in the years to come. This turn is not of course without its challenges. The sheer scale of the enterprise makes it hard to see the forest for the trees, making the development of novel two- and three-dimensional animated visualisations PREFACE xi a priority. Alongside this are the trials of streaming data, as a microblog unfolds, as a blogger develops and as Web 2.0 evolves; the contingencies of time matter and cannot be theorized away. Finally, and perhaps most challengingly, Web. 2.0 is more than words, and ever more so; this demands not just a linguistics of words but a semiotics of multimodality, with all the implications for data gathering, analysis, interpretation and theorizing such entails. To her credit, Zappavigna dodges none of these issues and, with respect to the fi rst two, shows us the way forward. We’ll be hearing a lot more from her along these lines.

Asia Gramigni

With the advent of Web 2.0 and the emergence of digital media, the way in which people communicate has changed considerably. The creation of new technological tools and the introduction of new communicative practices that digital media brought along with them, like “tagging”, “blogging”, “hyperlinking”, “filtering” and many others, increased people’s opportunity to create and channelling information. The development of new forms of media, which facilitate the mixing of different communicative modes in new ways over time and space, has changed the whole idea of what is meant by a text or a conversation. Indeed, digital media has enhanced the number of communicative modes available to us at any given time. Considering the globalized and digitally networked scenario people are living in today, the aim of this work is to study the influence of digital media, in particular social media and social networking sites like Twitter, in the process of meaning-making and the creation of civic engagement and political participation. The first chapter of this thesis focuses on the study of digital media in the field of discourse analysis, highlighting the new affordances of the ‘read-write web’ and the birth of new literacy practices along with the rise of social networking sites (SNSs) and social media platforms, with particular regard to Twitter and its main characteristics. This research draws upon the principles of social semiotics theorized by the linguist Michael Halliday and the further studies on multimodality developed by Gunther Kress and Theo van Leeuwen. It also takes into examination the study on social networking sites carried out by dana boyd and Nicole Ellison in order to focus the attention on the process of collaboration and ‘peer production’ facilitated by social media. The second chapter focuses on civic engagement and political participation on SNSs and opens with a 2009 Facebook’s study that shows the contribution of the Web in the empowerment of citizenship and activism. The study goes then on by presenting the case of the 2013 hashtag #BlackLivesMatter, which represents an example of the power of social media in gathering people. However, the main focus of this second chapter is on the rise of the #MeToo Movement, which although it was first created in 2006, gained attention only in October 2017 after actress Alyssa Milano’s tweet. In this specific case, social media, especially Twitter’s services and its social practices such as the “hashtag”, the “@replies” and the practice of “retweeting”, have shown their effectiveness in gathering activists with similar goals and create awareness about the movement. The third and last chapter is dedicated to analysis of Alyssa Milano’s tweet, from a digital, discursive and multimodal point of view. The first part of the chapter introduces the Hallidayan social semiotic approach to language studies and the three metafunctions he theorized. The chapter focuses then on Lemke’s concept of hypermodality, that features the integration of Hallidayan approach to language with multimodality and computer mediated communication. The chapter ends with a detailed analysis of the above-mentioned tweet.

The wider field of discourse studies is still only beginning to turn its attention to social media despite a number of notable scholarly works. But as yet there has been little that has dealt specifically with issues of multicultural discourse – how language, identity, cross-cultural social relations and power play out in the rapidly evolving landscape of social media. In this paper, I show why discourse studies must engage with theories and empirical work on social media across academic fields beyond discourse studies and linguistics, at how these can help best frame the kinds of research that needs to be done, how to best formulate some of the basic questions of critical discourse analysis for this new communicative environment. I use this as a platform to point to the areas where multicultural discourse studies can work – where all the ambiguities of former studies of ‘identity’ and ‘culture’ are present, but realised in new ways. Yet these new forms of communication are fused into wider patterns of changing cultural values about forms of social structure, knowledge itself and the kinds of issues that tend to form our individually civic spheres.

Proceeding of The 4th International Seminar on Linguistics (ISOL-4)

Hetti Waluati Triana

Crispin Thurlow

CITATION DETAILS: Thurlow, C. (in press). Digital discourse: Locating language in new/social media. In J. Burgess, T. Poell & A. Marwick (eds), The SAGE Handbook of Social Media. New York: Sage. ABSTRACT: In this chapter, I introduce " digital discourse studies, " a field which attends to linguistic, sociolinguistic, and discursive phenomena in new/social media. Starting with a review of key moments, issues and scholars, I identify four broad organizing principles: discourse, technology, multimodality, and ideology. A key feature of digital discourse studies is its interest in both micro-level linguistic details (so called lowercase d-discourse) and more macro-level social processes (upper-case D-discourse); scholars are also increasingly interested in understanding how linguistic phenomena intersect with other meaning-making practices (e.g. images, typography, colour). Againist this backdrop, I then consider a range of indicative studies showing the range of communicative processes and linguistic practices covered in digital discourse research. These studies also point to four particular ways of understanding how language typically takes place in new/social media: as a metadiscursive resource, a metrolingual resource, a transmodalizing resource, and a technologizing resource.

The study aims to identify the ways to produce text production process by Universitas Islam Negeri (UIN, or State Islamic University) students in Padang on Facebook. Documentations, observations, and in depth-interviews were used to collect data. There were 1,214 discourses found on group and personal accounts of 27 informants, and 400 discourses were taken as data of the research. The analysis was conducted by following Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis, (CDA), with the Critical Linguistics approach. The research findings show that the text production process by UIN students on Facebook were done in three ways, namely producing their own text, spreading other people’s texts that are shared from the site, and producing text as a result of consumption of other texts. Producing text itself is a way of producing text by creating its own status as a form of expression of thoughts, feelings, and experiences, without referring to other texts or texts that have been published on oth...

Nickie Sese

This paper aims to examine sample reportage of Rappler, MOCHA USON BLOG, and Matanglawin Ateneo about their political biases on Rodrigo Duterte’s presidency in the Philippines. I used a multimodal discourse analysis to scrutinize the multimodality of the three texts with an emphasis on the image, to be able to raise the points that are suggested and implied by the news organizations. Moreover, in this paper, I posit that the three texts analyzed is an example of Chantal Mouffe’s Agonistic Democracy where democracy is a space of conflict. To achieve democracy is to engage in an ‘agonistic’ struggle of dissenting opinions thereby openly engaging in conflicts. The paper also supports Mouffe’s claim that hegemony can be challenged which is exhibited by MOCHA USON BLOG’s rise to fame and Rappler, in its response to threat, tries to discredit it. The paper chiefly forwards the belief that in a democratic society, conflict is unavoidable, thus reaching a full consensus is impossible. Media’s task is not to get the public’s full consent on a specific issue, but to make sure that there is a safe space for discourse and dissenting opinions available for the public. Keywords: Rappler, Mocha Uson, Matanglawin Ateneo, Multimodal Discourse Analysis, Mouffe, Democracy, Hegemony, Agonism


Agatha Gintings

Scientific reports

Valdemar Esteves

Strong P Marbaniang

Heródoto: Revista do Grupo de Estudos e Pesquisas sobre a Antiguidade Clássica e suas Conexões Afro-asiáticas

Camila Aline Zanon


Francesco Silvestri


Betim Ismajli

Journal of Neuroinflammation

Kanchan Bisht


m. yüksel erdoğdu

Annales Geophysicae Discussions

Kushagra Sharma

National Journal of Physiology, Pharmacy and Pharmacology

Muskaan Nagpal

Marcos Almir de Oliveira

Eghytya Bagaskara

Journal of Sound and Vibration


Revista Estudos Feministas

rosemeri moreira

Jurnal Pengabdian Masyarakat: Darma Bakti Teuku Umar

ikhsan ikhsan

Mohamed Darghouth

Revista Guará

Thaciana Almeida

Mariano Castelli

Information Visualization

Sheelagh Carpendale

Tonya Jackson

Asian Journal of Research in Agriculture and Forestry

hari kaskoyo

TELKOMNIKA (Telecommunication Computing Electronics and Control)

Phan Xuân Lễ

Jurnal Derivat: Jurnal Matematika dan Pendidikan Matematika

Zaki Riyanto

IFAC Proceedings Volumes

Asian Journal of Biomedical and Pharmaceutical Sciences

See More Documents Like This


  •   We're Hiring!
  •   Help Center
  • Find new research papers in:
  • Health Sciences
  • Earth Sciences
  • Cognitive Science
  • Mathematics
  • Computer Science
  • Academia ©2024

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • View all journals
  • My Account Login
  • Explore content
  • About the journal
  • Publish with us
  • Sign up for alerts
  • Open access
  • Published: 28 October 2021

Discursive structures and power relations in Covid-19 knowledge production

  • Mario Bisiada   ORCID: 1  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  8 , Article number:  248 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

5048 Accesses

6 Citations

2 Altmetric

Metrics details

  • Cultural and media studies
  • Language and linguistics

This article critically examines the discourse around the Covid-19 pandemic to investigate the widespread polarisation evident in social media debates. The model of epidemic psychology holds that initial adverse reactions to a new disease spread through linguistic interaction. The main argument is that the mediation of the pandemic through social media has fomented the effects of epidemic psychology in the reaction to the Covid-19 pandemic by providing continued access to commentary and linguistic interaction. This social interaction in the absence of any knowledge on the new disease can be seen as a discourse of knowledge production, conducted largely on social media. This view, coupled with a critical approach to the power relations inherent in all processes of knowledge production, provides an approach to understanding the dynamics of polarisation, which is, arguably, issue-related and not along common ideological lines of left and right. The paper critiques two discursive structures of exclusion, the terms science and conspiracy theory , which have characterised the knowledge production discourse of the Covid-19 pandemic on social media. As strategies of dialogic contraction, they are based on a hegemonic view of knowledge production and on the simplistic assumption of an emancipated position outside ideology. Such an approach, though well-intentioned, may ultimately undermine social movements of knowledge production and thus threaten the very values it aims to protect. Instead, the paper proposes a Foucauldian approach that problematises truth claims and scientificity as always ideological and that is aware of power as inherent to all knowledge production.

Similar content being viewed by others

discursive essay about social media pdf

Constructing collective identities and solidarity in premiers’ early speeches on COVID-19: a global perspective

Martina Berrocal, Michael Kranert, … Aleksandra Salamurović

discursive essay about social media pdf

Communicating science in the COVID-19 news in the UK during Omicron waves: exploring representations of nature of science with epistemic network analysis

Kason Ka Ching Cheung, Ho-Yin Chan & Sibel Erduran

discursive essay about social media pdf

Transmediatisation of the Covid-19 crisis in Brazil: The emergence of (bio-/geo-)political repertoires of (re-)interpretation

Jaime de Souza Júnior

The first truly global, digitally mediated event

The Covid-19 pandemic is the first truly global event:

Not the Black Plague, not the transatlantic slave trade nor the two World Wars, not the 9/11 terrorist attacks have affected everyone, on every continent, as instantly and intimately and acutely as the spread of coronavirus, uniting us as we fear and think and hope about the same thing. (Badhken, 2020 )

While other events of historical magnitude had a global impact, they “were not experienced by the entire world at the same time” (Milanović, 2020 )—though this experience takes a different form for each of us, in terms of both our personal reaction and that of the country we live in. What unites these personal experiences is that they have been largely digital because, apart from being the first truly global event, it is also “the first epidemic in history in which people around the world have been collectively expressing their thoughts and concerns on social media” (Aiello et al., 2021 , p. 1). So our first global event is also the one “where we never met face-to-face in real-time with other people who lived through it” (Milanović, 2020 ).

Social media turned into the prime channel of the public sphere in quarantined societies, and a rigid and noxious polarisation evidently dominates the discourse (European Court of Human Rights, 2021 ; Yang, 2021 ). The question of why a crisis that should unite us in our communal struggle against a virus has produced such a divided society has put the spotlight on social media, which are still commonly assumed to be geared to create polarisation. The banning of @realdonaldtrump from Twitter may be read by future media scholars as to the beginning of an era of control of social media, as the end of Silicon Valley companies’ innocence as mediators of discourse. Since the global communities’ engagement in a fight against information disorder may produce other bans and regulations of free speech on public networks, the discussion of the role of social media as a public sphere will take important turns in the coming years.

In Rosenberg’s ( 1989 , p. 2) terms, as particular societies construct their characteristic responses following dramaturgic forms, epidemics are extraordinary opportunities to gain an “understanding of the relationship among ideology, social structure, and the construction of particular selves”. To understand “our contemporary reaction to a traditional stimulus”, we must distinguish between what is unique and what seems to be universal to pandemic responses (Rosenberg, 1989 , p. 2). This article tries to take the first step towards this goal through a critical approach to the discourse on the Covid-19 pandemic. An aspect unique to this pandemic is that it has been mediated primarily by social media. How this has shaped the response will be subject to extensive study in years to come, and the large amount of language data this has produced will be of great interest to social media discourse analysts. I propose that the mediating role of social media has provided the opportunity to approach the pandemic through the mode of knowledge production practice that is already exhibited by social movements. Contests over this knowledge production, however, led to a polarisation that cannot be explained comprehensively by common partisan affiliations but that should be understood to be interpretative, that is, predominantly issue-related. I argue that this polarisation has caused, and is caused by, among other things, discursive structures of exclusion, specifically through the hegemonic use of terms such as conspiracy theories and science . The following section will begin this argument by introducing the model of epidemic psychology that I adopt to understand our reaction to the Covid-19 pandemic.

Epidemic psychology and the virtual public sphere

Strong ( 1990 ) proposes the “epidemic psychology” model to describe the early reaction to new fatal diseases. He comments on the “striking problems that large, fatal epidemics seem to present to social order; on the waves of fear, panic, stigma, moralising, and calls to action that seem to characterise the immediate reaction” and the “extraordinary emotional maelstrom which seems, at least for a time, to be beyond anyone’s immediate control” (Strong, 1990 , p. 249), descriptions that fit our experience in the first year of the Covid-19 pandemic quite well. Strong sees the capacity of language to enable coordinated action among large groups of people, our “shared intentionality” (Tomasello, 2008 , p. 343), as the key factor in epidemic psychology, making human societies “complex and, though elaborately organised, still potentially subject to fundamental change, simultaneously massively ordered and extraordinarily fragile” (Strong, 1990 , p. 256).

Most social action is based on routine: Strong ( 1990 , p. 257) cites Alfred Schütz’s idea that everyday life is “a matter neither of rationality nor irrationality, but of routine”. Similarly, Berger and Luckmann ( 1966 , p. 172) have argued that “the most important vehicle of reality-maintenance is casual conversation”, which “can afford to be casual precisely because it refers to the routines of a taken-for-granted world. The loss of casualness signals a break in the routines and, at least potentially, a threat to the taken-for-granted reality” (Berger and Luckmann, 1966 , p. 172). Such a threat to routine can lead to “epidemic psychology in which contagious waves of panic rip unpredictably through both individuals and the body politic, disrupting all manner of everyday practices, undermining faith in conventional authority” (Strong, 1990 , p. 257). In sum,

the human origin of epidemic psychology lies not so much in our unruly passions as in the threat of epidemic disease to our everyday assumptions, in the potential fragility of human social structure and interaction, and in the huge diversity and elaboration of human thought, morality and technology; based as all of these are upon words rather than genes. (Strong, 1990 , p. 258).

With language at the heart of epidemic psychology, the threshold at which epidemic psychology sets in may be lower in the digital age due to greater connectedness and thus exposure to language and conversation. The study of language use on social media is thus fundamental to understanding the social processes and transformations that will result from the Covid-19 pandemic. The Internet and social media are by now fundamentally important for all types of linguistic acts including casual conversation and coordinated social action. We produce and receive more language on a daily basis than ever (McCullock, 2019 , p. 2). In Foucauldian terms, social media provides the environment of commentary that keep alive a large amount of discourses which would otherwise disappear (Foucault, 1981 , pp. 56–57), thus creating the impression that particular knowledges are established. If we consider social media “important engines of context collapse, rather than enablers of ideological segregation” (Bruns, 2019 , p. 99), it should come as no surprise that the symptoms of epidemic psychology described by Strong ( 1990 ) set in so quickly and transversally in our societies (see, e.g. Esses and Hamilton, 2021 ; Aiello et al., 2021 ).

Social media use has increased vastly during the Covid-19 pandemic (Nguyen et al., 2020 ), and it is the connectedness through social media that makes this pandemic unlike any other (Aiello et al., 2021 ; Madrigal, 2020 ; Tsao et al., 2021 ). The possibility to experience it in a socially distanced way is afforded to us only by our digitalised world. As Harari ( 2021 ) observes, “[i]n 1918, […] if you ordered the entire population of a country to stay at home for several weeks, it would have resulted in economic ruin, social breakdown and mass starvation. In contrast, in 2020, […] automation and the Internet made extended lockdowns viable, at least in developed countries”. How viable they are in terms of long-term effects remains to be seen, and, as Harari ( 2021 ) rightfully notes, even this digital world could not function without “the crucial role that many low-paid professions play in maintaining human civilisation: nurses, sanitation workers, truck drivers, cashiers, delivery people”. Given this fundamental importance of digital access, the #StayHome narratives of lockdown life have been particularly developed-world, digitalised, middle class, childless narratives. But the key point is that “after 2020, we know that life can go on even when an entire country is in physical lockdown” (Harari, 2021 ).

How will this new importance of social media affect society? Whether virtual public spaces also constitute a virtual public sphere has long been discussed (for an overview, see Bruns and Highfield, 2016 ). While using social media empowers users by broadcasting their opinions more widely, “the same anonymity and absence of face-to-face interaction that expands our freedom of expression online keeps us from assessing the impact and social value of our words” (Papacharissi, 2002 , p. 16). In fact, this sense of empowerment may misrepresent the true impact of our opinions (Papacharissi, 2002 , p. 17) and also of those held by others: Because a few vocal users can create a lot of activity, browsing social media may give us a distorted view of society, making it appear more polarised than it actually is.

A case in point is the (now deleted) Twitter thread that made Eric Feigl-Ding famous: He summarised a paper about the new coronavirus with the words “HOLY MOTHER OF GOD—the new coronavirus is a 3.8!!!” and called this infectiousness “thermonuclear pandemic level bad” (24 January 2020). In a response thread on Twitter, science writer Ferris Jabr shows that Feigl-Ding’s thread “missed essential context and contains numerous errors” and argues that his “claim that ‘we are now faced with the most virulent virus epidemic the world has ever seen’ and that the new coronavirus is 8x as infectious as SARS is completely untrue” ( ). Feigl-Ding’s viral thread thus

exemplified a deep problem on Twitter: The most extreme statements can be far more amplified than more measured messages. In the information sphere, while public-health researchers are doing their best to distribute scientific evidence, viral Twitter threads, context-free videos, and even conspiracy theories are reaching far more people. (Madrigal, 2020 )

Some argue, however, that it’s exactly this recognition of constant evolution that should inform modern science, that Feigl-Ding has just understood how social media work and “committed the unpardonable sin of failing to act on Twitter like enough of a scientist—you know, terrified of getting something wrong, because science never does ” (Science+Story, 2020 ). As social media come under increasing pressure through debates over misinformation, one task the pandemic sets us is to work towards a virtual public sphere that goes beyond the imagined communities (Anderson, 1983 ) or virtual spheres “consist[ing] of several spheres of counterpublics that have been excluded from mainstream political discourse, yet employ virtual communication to restructure the mainstream that ousted them” (Papacharissi, 2002 , p. 21).

Most theorisations on the virtual public sphere consider it in conjunction with the non-virtual sphere. The new situation we face now is the temporary quasi-disappearance of physical interactions. As I have argued in this section, while epidemic psychology had been constrained in previous pandemics by the sheer absence of contact, it is now able to continue unchecked, simply because a lockdown no longer keeps us from conversing with the world. The public sphere has been forcibly moved into the virtual space, for a short yet decisive amount of time: Public shaming of “irresponsible” people, insults (“Covidiot”), dubious model predictions and all the other effects of epidemic psychology could be observed. This, as I argue in the following section, has made the Covid-19 pandemic a phenomenon of communal knowledge production practice.

The Covid-19 pandemic as process of knowledge production

The Covid-19 pandemic is a unique phenomenon of knowledge production practice in the history of humanity because the phenomena of epidemic psychology described by Strong ( 1990 ) are for the first time mediated by a global network, that is, social media. The knowledge production in the Covid-19 pandemic resembles, in an accelerated form, that of climate change. Our first global event also gave us the opportunity to learn together, in real time, across the globe. Social media turn not only politics from a closed space into “a conversation that can be joined by outsiders” (Ausserhofer and Maireder, 2013 , p. 306), but also science, by way of knowledge production practices. There has long been a discussion in the philosophy of science on how knowledge gets subsumed into “scientism”, defined as “the conviction that we can no longer understand science as one form of possible knowledge, but rather must identify knowledge with science” (Habermas, 1972 , p. 4). The Covid-19 pandemic has placed science along with its hegemonies in the spotlight of society, and it is thus informative to reflect on the relation between science and knowledge.

As a response to public fear, the Covid-19 pandemic has followed the model of epidemic psychology in generating an “exceptionally volatile intellectual state” (Strong, 1990 , p. 254), as little is known about the new disease (Davey Smith et al., 2020 ) and there was uncertainty about whether “a new disease or a new outbreak is trivial or whether it is really something enormously important”, leading to “collective disorientation” (Strong, 1990 , p. 254). This volatile intellectual state and disorientation have created discourses of knowledge production (Casas-Cortés et al., 2008 ; Della Porta and Pavan, 2017 ; Pavan and Felicetti, 2019 ), defined as “practices through which local and highly personal experiences, rationalities, and competences get connected and coordinated within shared cognitive systems which, in turn, provide movements and their supporters with a common orientation for making claims and acting collectively” (Pavan and Felicetti, 2019 , p. 3).

Such practices create what Foucault ( 1980 ) calls local, subjugated knowledges, defined as an “autonomous, non-centralised kind of theoretical production, one that is to say whose validity is not dependent on the approval of the established regimes of thought” (Foucault, 1980 , p. 81). While such theoretical production consists of “local, discontinuous, disqualified, illegitimate knowledges”, it does not constitute a right to ignorance or non-knowledge: it is opposed “not to the contents, methods or concepts of a science, but to the effects of the centralising powers which are linked to the institution and functioning of an organised scientific discourse” (Foucault, 1980 , p. 84). More recently, Fischer ( 2000 ) has shown how local contextual knowledge by citizens can help solve complex social and environmental problems. One example of these from the current pandemic are mutual aid groups (Engler, 2020 ; Mahanty and Phillipps, 2020 ; Sitrin and Colectiva Sembrar, 2020 ). However, the often centralising, heavy-handed or even authoritarian responses of governments, coupled with blanket policies that reflected little trust in the intelligence or autonomy of its citizens, hindered such knowledge production movements. Citizens were delegated to a passive role while a selected group of experts led the response, which mirrors the dynamics experienced by environmental movements (Fischer, 2000 , pp. 92–93).

A ready response to this volatile intellectual state tends to be that educated citizens should trust in science and condemn those who believe conspiracy theories, who spread fake news, who usher in an era of post-truth. Such a response, however, is often undergirded by a simplistic understanding of ideology, by the idea that we can and must somehow combat ideology and promote scientific truth through critical scrutiny of language and discourse in the media. Foucault criticised the usefulness of the notion of ideology for the fact that it “always stands in virtual opposition to something else which is supposed to count as truth” (Foucault, 1980 , p. 180). Rather than exploring a knowable reality, scientific enquiry has been described as constructive practice, that is, “oriented toward ‘making things work’ successfully and embedded in a reality which is highly artificial and essentially self-created” (Knorr-Cetina, 1977 , p. 670). In other words, assuming some kind of “false consciousness” within ideology presupposes the existence of a “consciousness which is not false (the position of critique)” (Mills, 2004 , p. 29), but such a position does not exist: “All knowledge is determined by a combination of social, institutional and discursive pressures” (Mills, 2004 , p. 30).

The dominating theoretical approaches to critical discourse studies hold that, through an awareness of linguistic/ideological oppression based on neo-Marxist or rationalist analysis, people are empowered to bring about social change and thus achieve emancipation (Hart and Cap, 2014 , p. 2). While this is a useful approach to studying language and social change, Pennycook ( 2001 , pp. 36–41) criticises such “emancipatory modernist” approaches as potentially patronising and argues that they lack the means to respond to the awareness of ideological oppression. Emancipatory modernist approaches to discourse are often grounded in a simplistic view of ideology juxtaposed with some “knowable reality” and hold the problematic notion that “scientific knowledge of reality can help us escape from the falsity of ideology” (Pennycook, 2001 , p. 41), a rationale that is itself often used by populist agitators (Bruns, 2019 , p. 114). Messianic attempts to help people see the light often fail, overlooking that many discourse practices aim to “explore others’ reaction to one’s identity and have it confirmed in interactions, including hostile reactions that confirm one’s status as a critical outsider” (Krämer, 2017 , p. 1302), thus cementing the very status one seeks to challenge into an emancipated position of its own. When studying epidemic psychology and the uncertain intellectual state it produces, it is thus more important than ever to remember that all language is political (Gee, 2011 , p. 10), all knowledge production is ideological and there is no truth or knowledge outside ideology (Pennycook, 2001 , p. 89).

As is the case with climate action, science’s indeterminacy, its raising more questions than it could answer, has led to its politicisation (Fischer, 2000 , p. 95). My argument in this section has been that, in the volatile intellectual state the Covid-19 pandemic has caused, the hegemonies of knowledge production, while always existing below the surface, have been made exceptionally visible. The restlessness of hypermediativity, fuelled by a constant generation and availability of data, allowed everyone to conduct “fact-based” statistical analyses and share them, around the clock. The fast exchange through social media and the way it empowers users to broadcast opinions and knowledge to wide audiences have caused a politicisation and polarisation of scientific debates (Clarke, 2020 ; Bhopal and Munro, 2021 ). In the context of the Covid-19 pandemic as a process of knowledge production, it is necessary to differentiate the concept of polarisation a bit further, as I will do in the next section.

Interpretative polarisation

In this paper, I understand polarisation as a dynamic phenomenon, driven by “interpretative” polarisation, “the process wherein different groups in a society contextualise a common topic in starkly different ways” so that “frames used by one camp are deemed unfounded, inappropriate, or illegitimate by other camps” (Kligler-Vilenchik et al., 2020 , p. 2). Social media are so rooted in our daily lives that they receive attention from a range of disciplines, and many commentators still purport that social media “foster extreme viewpoints by design” (Bhopal and Munro, 2021 ) and are thus inherently geared to produce polarisation.

A range of evidence argues against this deterministic view, however. In a review of a range of studies, Tucker et al. ( 2018 , pp. 15–16) argue that “[t]he consumption of political information through social media increases cross-cutting exposure, which has a range of positive effects on civic engagement, political moderation, and the quality of democratic politics, but also facilitates the spread of misinformation”. Bruns ( 2019 ) has cast doubt on Pariser’s ( 2011 ) concept of the “filter bubble”, and the popular idea that social bots on Twitter “pretend to be a human user and [are] operated by some sinister actor to manipulate public opinion” seems unfounded according to recent research (Gallwitz and Kreil, 2021 ). Frequent use of ever more available social media diversifies individuals’ networks, which may alleviate concerns about echo chambers on social media (Lee et al., 2014 ), though may not necessarily “create more informed citizens” (Papacharissi, 2002 , p. 15), or a public sphere as such: While social media use “may reduce ideological polarisation as a result of leading to higher cross-cutting exposure, it may simultaneously increase affective polarisation because of the negative nature of these interactions” (Tucker et al., 2018 , p. 21), of which the Covid-19 pandemic has provided many.

In the absence of knowledge on the disease, the reactions to the Covid-19 pandemic subverted the established ideological standpoints. The range of ideological persuasions observed at anti-lockdown protests and the fact that liberal thinkers argue for closed borders while conservative thinkers question night-time curfews and police presence shows that the conflict cannot be thought along the usual partisan lines. Research on polarisation has argued for the recognition of various dimensions of opinion polarisation: Where new issues arise, people are prepared to deviate from their regular partisan or ideological direction (Wojcieszak and Rojas, 2011 ). Studies suggest that partisan/ideological affiliation is not as directly influenced by knowledge as issue-related opinions:

[K]nowledge is found to predict the variance of two issue-related measures of polarisation, whereas there is no such association between knowledge and partisan/ideological polarisation. This is consistent with previous research that the more knowledgeable are likely to move to more extreme issue positions by counter arguing claims incompatible with their political predisposition. (Lee et al., 2014 , pp. 716–717)

People evaluate objects that they encounter frequently along different lines to rare but impactful objects: differing findings for party/ideology and issue-related polarisation suggest that the underlying mechanism of partisan and ideological polarisation is distinct from that of issue-related processes (Tucker et al., 2018 , pp. 40–48). This recognition shows that studies or surveys linking attitudes towards the Covid-19 pandemic to partisan affiliations are not entirely informative.

In a study of how citizens evaluate arguments about contested issues, Taber and Lodge ( 2006 ) find that prior attitudes decisively guide how new information is processed:

Far from the rational calculator portrayed in enlightenment prose and spatial equations, homo politicus would seem to be a creature of simple likes and prejudices that are quite resistant to change. […] Skepticism is valuable and attitudes should have inertia. But skepticism becomes bias when it becomes unreasonably resistant to change and especially when it leads one to avoid information as with the confirmation bias. (Taber and Lodge, 2006 , pp. 767–768)

The “boundary line between rational skepticism and irrational bias” (Taber and Lodge, 2006 , p. 768) is a key issue in discussions about the Covid-19 pandemic, and one that can perhaps not be established in a normative way.

To address the question of why a newly arisen issue that could not be addressed by existing political schemes has polarised society so quickly, we may argue, then, that different contextualisations of the same issue have produced different evaluations in people (Kligler-Vilenchik et al., 2020 ). While people can generally process multiple frames and evaluate different angles, this ability may be hampered where “competing groups rely exclusively on contrasting frames and reject (or are unaware of) those frames underlying divergent preferences”, which may lead to “contrasting interpretations that sustain irreconcilable positions”. It is this configuration that, I argue, leads to interpretative polarisation, which may make “meaningful conversation between groups almost impossible” (Kligler-Vilenchik et al., 2020 , p. 2) and reinforce political polarisation.

Examples of such contrasting interpretations abound. The term lockdown has had differing definitions in each country, which led to shadings such as hard/soft lockdown . The term new normal was perhaps meant to anchor hygiene measures in people’s thoughts, but is seen by many as an attempt to normalise draconian restrictions and situations that are clearly anything but normal. The dichotomy of health vs economy is another example of how the same issue can be presented in different lights, depending on the angle one takes.

Interpretative polarisation can explain why partisan analysis does not apply to the Covid-19 pandemic as an extraordinary phenomenon whose epidemic psychology, as I have argued so far, made necessary new reflections, a process of knowledge production. The Covid-19 pandemic challenges existing ideological boundaries, so an analysis of its discourse requires an approach that goes beyond seeing ideology as a given structural object and instead analyses hegemonies and power struggles inherent in all discourses of knowledge production.

Discursive structures of exclusion

Exclusion through dialogic contraction.

An oft-repeated charge in debates on the Covid-19 pandemic is that particular voices or opinions have been ignored or excluded from the debate, that particular things cannot be said. This is then countered by the reminder that there is free speech, that anyone can publish anything after all. Both positions forget that discourses are generally considered to be “principally organised around practices of exclusion” (Mills, 2004 , p. 11): Any notion of what seems natural to say or what seems unsayable is the result of such exclusion practices, of “battles ‘for truth’” where, in the words of Foucault, “by truth I do not mean ‘the ensemble of truths which are to be discovered and accepted’, but rather ‘the ensemble of rules according to which the true and the false are separated and specific effects of power attached to the true’” (Foucault, 1980 , p. 132).

Foucault ( 1981 , pp. 52–54) proposes three procedures of exclusion: prohibition, the division of reason/madness and the opposition between true/false (the “will to truth”). The argument that nobody is excluded because everyone is free to publish anything misunderstands practices of discursive exclusion by reducing them to the first of those principles (prohibition) while ignoring the existence of the other two. Based on Bakhtin’s concept of “centripetal-centrifugal struggle”, Baxter ( 2011 ) argues that, as it is “difficult to presume that all discourses are equal in the play for meaning, […] competing discourses are not equally legitimated. Some are centred (the centripetal) and others are marginalised (centrifugal). In the instance of monologue, all but a single totalising discourse is erased” (Baxter, 2011 , p. 14). Thus, the struggles of exclusion are regular phenomena of hegemony in discourse, made visible through the extraordinary process of knowledge generation. The fact that free speech is constrained and certain things become dominant in discourses while others become unsayable is a product of competing power relations in a discourse (see Mills, 2004 , p. 64). These power relations, as usual in Foucauldian thought, are not inherently negative or positive, but potentially dangerous if not questioned, which is the aim of this section.

In what follows, I investigate two discursive structures of exclusion via dialogic contraction that originate in the emancipatory modernist approach to ideology in discourse identified above: First, the reference to an abstract authority ( the science ) and second, accusations of conspiracy theories . I understand dialogic contraction with reference to Bakhtinian dialogism (for an introduction, see Robinson, 2011 ) as used in various theories of discourse analysis such as Appraisal Theory (Martin and White, 2005 ) and Relational Dialectics Theory. In the latter, discourses (defined roughly as systems of meaning or “voices”) compete in discursive struggle, on a cline between monologic and idealised dialogic (Baxter, 2011 ). While in idealised dialogism all discourses are given equal weight, monologism consists of “a discursive playing field so unequal that all but one monologic, authoritative discourse is silenced” (Baxter, 2011 , p. 9). This model is useful for analysing the discourse on the Covid-19 pandemic because it reflects the accusation that the public debate has increasingly become monologic, with the authoritative discourse of the respective political leaders and their close circles of experts in the dominant position.

One of the first demands on social media at the beginning of the pandemic was that people should be quiet and “let experts talk”. These calls were meant to reduce noise in the discourse, a defence mechanism to the heated reactions in the networks, in line with early reactions of epidemic psychology. They were initial reactionary attempts to exclude voices from commenting on what was from the beginning a complex social crisis that concerns everyone. Attempts to restrict the discourse to “experts” only later crystallised into the two frequent formulas that we should follow the science and that we must combat conspiracy theories .

This simplistic binary choice juxtaposing the science/experts/evidence with conspiracy theories/fake news is at the heart of the dialogic contraction in the Covid-19 pandemic. It makes it seem as though the only available positions are either to believe Covid-19 to be a global threat that eclipses all other threats or to deny its existence altogether, thus mirroring labellings used in the climate debate, which “isolate, exclude, ignore, and dismiss claim-makers of all types from constructive dialogue” (Howarth and Sharman, 2015 , p. 239).

These strategies of dialogic contraction work by appealing to taken-for-granted truths (science is good, populism is bad) and to an imagined neutral position outside ideology, power and discourse. This position is workable in routine debates, where challenges are either confined to academic circles or addressed by societies’ “general politics of truth” (Foucault, 1980 , p. 131). In an epistemologically disruptive event such as the Covid-19 pandemic, however, as I argue in this article, the role of science in the public enters the spotlight, epistemic psychology challenges our established routines, and discursive structures of dialogic contraction towards a monologic extreme rapidly translate into social polarisation.

Critical approaches to discourse that are conscious of and able to consider power relations as they emerge from discursive practice thus seem better suited to study our present situation. To study language with the aim of explaining power rather than just reveal it, we must show how power operates in discourses rather than how it is held by particular, pre-categorised actors or institutions (Pennycook, 2001 , p. 93). As Katsambekis and Stavrakakis ( 2020 ) argue:

In many cases, understanding the policies of certain actors through the lens of ‘populism’ […] and the vague notion of a ‘populist threat to democracy’, often adopted in typical anti-populist discourses, seems to be diverting attention from other imminent dangers to democracy, most importantly: nativism, nationalism, authoritarianism, racism. (Katsambekis and Stavrakakis, 2020 , p. 7)

Having established discursive structures of exclusion as inherent to all discourse, I now discuss two strategies of dialogic contraction that I consider to be fundamental to the polarisation that we have seen in this pandemic and that let us answer why a global health crisis and the knowledge production that ensued, where we are all on the same side, has become such a polarising topic.

The science as legitimating authority

A central claim made by most leaders throughout the Covid-19 pandemic has been that they “follow the science” (Pérez-González, 2020b ; Stevens, 2020 ; Pierce, 2021 ). In his first prime-time address to the nation on 11 March, Joe Biden said, “we know what we need to do to beat this virus. Tell the truth. Follow the scientists and the science”. What is unclear about such statements is what exactly “the science” refers to. Sweden, under Anders Tegnell’s advice, also “follows the science”, and the rate of agreement of the Swedish scientific community, when asked whether scientific advice had been taken into account, does not differ from that reported for other countries (Rijs and Fenter, 2020 ). Yet the Swedish approach, generally described as at best “unorthodox”, differs radically to that of many other countries, and mentioning “Sweden” in a current social network discussion is a safe way of being delegitimised as a reasonable discourse actor (Torjesen, 2021 ).

This suggests that the reductive notion of the science , like the similar formula the evidence (see Furedi, 2020 ), is defined based on particular principles of authority, established, though not overtly specified, by dominant discourse actors. It disclaims the multivoicedness, interdisciplinarity and plurality of processes of knowledge production (Knorr-Cetina, 1999 ) and serves as a discursive strategy of dialogic contraction, an expression of discursive hegemony: “The debate becomes polarised and binary: if the science says yes to face coverings, then challenging the orthodoxy or even questioning its universality becomes heretical” (Martin et al., 2020 , p. 506).

Taylor ( 2010 ) conducts a corpus-assisted study of the use of the term the science in UK press articles between 1993 and 2008. Referring to Aristotle’s model of rhetoric and argumentation, she argues that science , instead of being used as part of logos, providing logical proof, “is increasingly used as a part of ethos, that is, persuasion at the interpersonal level”, projecting a particular stance towards the audience and appealing to an unspecified or unexplained authority, “making the writer’s personal character appear more credible by enroling ‘science’ on their side of an argument” (Taylor, 2010 , p. 222). This is especially the case where authors “refer to some unspecified, autonomous, authoritative entity” such as the science (Taylor, 2010 , p. 236). These findings are echoed by Pérez-González’s ( 2020a , p. 13) study of a corpus of a wide range of climate change blogs, where bloggers attempt to construct authoritative voices of consensus by using the the science formula.

While scientific discourse in general is rarely characterised by consensus, it is much less so in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic. A review of studies shows that a lot of research on the issue has been biased or of low quality (Raynaud et al., 2021 ). Critiques of bias in the acceptation and rejection of evidence have long existed (Stevens, 2007 ) and are echoed in a cross-country report on populism in the Covid-19 pandemic:

“Experts” are not neutral actors that will save liberal democracy from “bad populists”. […] [T]he pandemic has rather revealed the deeply political character of scientific input in critical junctures as well as the very political agency of experts themselves. […] It becomes apparent then that exactly as populists do not form a coherent bloc in the pandemic, experts too cannot be treated as a unified front, thus the dichotomy “ experts vs populists” is exposed as fundamentally flawed once more in the context of the ongoing crisis. (Katsambekis and Stavrakakis, 2020 , pp. 7–8)

Many righteous approaches to the Covid-19 pandemic, but also to the climate emergency, succeed in identifying ideologically motivated harmful practices, but succumb to the emancipatory modernist lack of self-reflexivity on whether its messages, which are meant to convince the targeted audience, do not just patronise it, as discussed above. Populists will respond to this not by accepting that they are wrong, but by rejecting the entire frame of knowledge: “We’ll probably also start to hear calls for climate lockdowns. I know, right now that sounds completely preposterous, but don’t these kooky ideas always find a way to bleed into the mainstream? […] Don’t worry though, they’re just following the science ” (Miller, 2021 ).

It is understandable to want to reinforce a society that bases its actions on informed opinion, especially in the age of Trumpism. However, it is the very reductionism of an approach that makes an unspecified truth-claim to the science and disqualifies everything else as unreasonable that allows populist actors like Trump to gain power by turning the same simple strategy on its head. The postmodernist challenges of a simplified, messianic notion of the science remain valid. The formula represents a simplistic and hegemonic view of what “science” is and threatens to turn it into a buzzword of discursive exclusion and disciplining, undermining equal engagement in knowledge production.

Conspiracy theory as a sanctioning device

The second structure of exclusion I discuss is the term conspiracy theory . Husting and Orr ( 2007 ) critique this term as a metadiscursive “vocabulary of motive in struggles over the meaning of social and political worlds, events, and ideas” ( 2007 , p. 132). In simple terms, its use signifies a discursive move of “going meta”, that is, “elect[ing] to step back from the immediacy of a question to question the questioner’s motives, or tone, or premises, or right to ask certain questions, or right to ask any questions at all” (Simons, 1994 , p. 470). Invoking the label conspiracy theory thus has the function of “shifting the focus of discourse to reframe another’s claims as unwarranted or unworthy of full consideration” (Husting and Orr, 2007 , p. 129). While research has put into question whether applying the label has any negative effect on the targeted actor’s beliefs (Wood, 2016 ), the accusation of conspiracy theory seeks to discursively expel actors from the community of reasonable interlocutors, thus “protecting certain decisions and people from question in arenas of political, cultural, and scholarly knowledge construction” (Husting and Orr, 2007 , p. 130) by reverting the focus of attention onto the questioner.

This discursive structure is often used in “cultures of fear” that “generate new mechanisms of social control” (Husting and Orr, 2007 , p. 128). Considering that many European countries are still in constant alert mode from terrorism, the description of such a culture fits the past year quite well:

fear and threat become the means for media, politicians, and corporations to sell commodities, buy votes, and justify policies reducing civil rights and promoting war (Altheide, 2000 ). As a mythos of consensus has turned into a mythos of fear, we would expect to find new interactional mechanisms to shield authority and legitimacy from challenge or accountability. (Husting and Orr, 2007 , p. 130)

More recently, Husting ( 2018 ) identifies two problems with current academic and journalist discourse around conspiracy. First, a cognitive approach, which “attempts to diagnose traits like character and intelligence, intent on identifying hidden, usually individualised causes of constructing, believing in, and circulating conspiracy theories” (Husting, 2018 , p. 111). By psychologising the subjects of its analysis in this way, “it misses the political work done by the labels themselves” and overstates their coherence to argue for their danger to society (Husting, 2018 , p. 112). Husting argues that this cognitive analysis expresses a neoliberal responsibilisation of the individual in various ways to “follow expert advice to optimise well-being and health of body, mind, and polis” (Husting, 2018 , p. 113). As citizens, we “regulate ourselves by regulating, judging, and contemning others, and keeping our own thoughts and styles of reason and emotion clear” (Husting, 2018 , p. 123). The disputes over truth, falsity and conspiracy theories thus “serve to construct, circulate, and enact a ‘well-tempered’ citizen in liberal politics” (Husting, 2018 , p. 113).

The second problem Husting ( 2018 ) identifies with current conspiracy theory discourse is its affective register. According to dominant analyses, conspiracy theorists “step out of the sphere of reason and logic, and enter the terrain of the emotional and the psychotic” (Husting, 2018 , p. 117). Yet conspiracy discourse is itself “a form of emotional and political engagement driven by contempt and laced with anger and fear” by policing the boundaries of reasonable political doubt and theorising an “uncorrupted democratic sphere” (Husting, 2018 , p. 117) outside ideology. By constructing conspiracy theories as threats to the order of the state and to the uncorrupted citizen, conspiracy theory discourse falls victim to the same pseudo-messianic discursive approach it seeks to unravel.

In a study of Wikipedia edits of the article on the German word for conspiracy theory, Verschwörungstheorie , Vogel ( 2018 ) argues that the term is not used with a descriptive, analytical function, but is part of an established metadiscursive accusatory, stigmatising and disciplinary pattern to sanction views from a position or epistemology outside the collectivism and the “sayable” in the ingroup, whose validity is assumed to be taken for granted (Vogel, 2018 , p. 281). As Husting ( 2018 , p. 120) says, “[o]nce the label ‘conspiracy theory’ sticks to someone, it impugns their intellectual and moral competence and relieves hearers of the need to consider the validity of her or his claims”. The use of the term, thus, lacks a problematisation of one’s own supposed neutrality. Its use is hegemonic, not analytical.

Vogel ( 2018 ) studies Wikipedia discourse specifically, but his observations are transferable to general social media discourse. And in the pandemic knowledge production, the epistemological conditions and power relations among participants within such knowledge production movements (Esteves, 2008 ) are comparable. Due to the shift of the public sphere into the digital as discussed above, most people will have experienced debates in online worlds along with everything this entails.

In a comprehensive survey of the usage of conspiracy theory , Butter ( 2018 ) writes that, while the Internet and social media have made conspiracy theories more visible and fast-moving, they are no more frequent or influential than they used to be because they are still regarded as “stigmatised knowledge”. In the wake of the current surge of populism combined with the fragmentation of society through the Internet, Butter ( 2018 , p. 18) argues, the fragmented public sphere and the different notions of truth condition the current debate in which some are afraid again of conspiracies while others are still worried about the fatal effects of conspiracy theories. The dialogic contraction we are arguably seeing can thus be traced to a particular constellation of fears for the public sphere combined with the fear of the pandemic.

In sum, value-laden terms such as conspiracy theory are attempts to exercise discursive power over others by excluding them from being reasonable participants in the debate, both in everyday interactions by users and in official government acts. Mechanisms that define limits of the sayable “weaken public spaces that are central for interaction, contest, and deliberation: the spaces where we define our world” (Husting and Orr, 2007 , p. 147).

In this section, I have discussed two structures of exclusion by dialogic contraction: the science and conspiracy theory . These are common terms in everyday discourse, but, as I have shown, their appropriateness for academic study and debate is questionable due to their hegemonic nature and unreflected reference to accepted and sanctioned knowledge. This is not to say, of course, that we should endorse conspiracy theories or reject science. The aim is rather to become aware of how all types of knowledge are related to power. I am not interested here in evaluating the veracity of particular discourses on the Covid-19 pandemic (cf. Husting and Orr, 2007 , p. 131), or even in whether conspiracy theories are dangerous or not, but in the mechanisms whereby one discourse becomes considered dominant and thus supported by financial and social capital whereas the other becomes confined to the margins of society (Mills, 2004 , p. 17).

In this paper, I have adopted the model of epidemic psychology, which functions fundamentally through linguistic interaction, and argued that social media use has fomented its effects in the reaction to the Covid-19 pandemic by providing sustained access to commentary and linguistic interaction. I have suggested that this social interaction in a context of a volatile intellectual state can be seen as a discourse of knowledge production, conducted largely on social media. This view, along with the power relations it implies, provides an approach to understanding the dynamics of polarisation as interpretative, outside established partisan lines. To understand the polarisation better, I have discussed two discursive structures of exclusion, the terms the science and conspiracy theory , which have characterised the knowledge production discourse of the Covid-19 pandemic on social media. I have argued that these are strategies of dialogic contraction which are based on a hegemonic view of knowledge and a simplistic view of ideology based in the emancipatory modernist view of language that represents the currently dominant form of discourse analysis.

With this line of argument, I have intended to make sense of the Covid-19 pandemic discourse and take a step towards understanding the polarisation in our societies. As I have argued, this polarisation is due to discourse practices and not attributable to social media technology. The Covid-19 pandemic has forced us to reflect on many things, not just ourselves, but also the way we study society and (means of) communication. A great amount of data is being collected (see, e.g. Chen et al., 2020 ) and many studies will investigate the role of language and social media in the social transformation we are going to see in the coming years. I hope that the literature review conducted in this article has contributed some reflections on pertinent concepts and possible methodologies, or at least heuristics, for these future studies to consider.

From the perspective of discourse studies, I have endorsed the practice of Critical Applied Linguistics (Pennycook, 2001 ), which identifies both strengths and weaknesses of current approaches to discourse and seeks to improve on them by a greater foundation in critical theory and by a series of paradigmatic characteristics to problematise practice. Arguments are to be sought in texts, not in author profiles, so constructing corpora of texts harvested in “conspiracy theory” or “anti-vaxxer” forums or that consist of “fake news” means starting from a value position, a truth claim that can only confirm ideologies we already look for, but hardly explain their working in society. As Butter and Knight ( 2016 , p. 23) argue, “the aim of producing empirical, value-neutral research on the phenomenon of ‘conspiracy theory’ is misguided, because the term itself is not value-neutral”.

Categories such as “class”, “gender”, but also “identity” are often assumed to “exist prior to language”, to be reflected in language use, when really they need to be explained themselves, with language being a part of this explanation (Cameron, 1995 , p. 15). Like other conflicts, the polarisation in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic has unveiled “the processes of norm-making and norm-breaking, bringing into the open the arguments that surround rules […] and how unquestioned (‘conventional’) ways of behaving are implicitly understood by social actors” (Cameron, 1995 , p. 17). It is this kind of processes that should be studied from a self-reflexive position that is aware of its own subjection to ideology and power relations.

A promising approach might be found in the Critical Disinformation Studies syllabus (Marwick et al., 2021 ), which argues, among other things, that fake news do not originate in extremism, but that “strategic disinformation and its cousin ‘propaganda’ are state and media industry practices with very long histories”, so instead of “plac[ing] the responsibility on individuals to become better consumers of media”, this approach seeks to “foreground questions of power, institutions, and economic, social, cultural, and technological structures as they shape disinformation”. Research shows that greater public awareness of how science communication works increases the acceptance of scientific findings regardless of partisan ideologies (Weisberg et al., 2021 ).

The process of knowledge production on social media I envision in this paper in many ways resembles what is taking place in climate action and environmentalism (Pérez-González, 2020a ). One might counter that the pandemic response cannot be called a social movement, but has been more of an emergency response to a problem that was always short-lived, and much more fast-paced than climate change, so is not perfectly comparable. But the knowledge production conducted on social media, and some of the movements born from this (see Sitrin and Colectiva Sembrar, 2020 ), provides a blueprint for environmentalism, a social movement that could benefit from the same kind of knowledge-practice. Some see the Covid-19 pandemic as a “test run” for the climate emergency, as there is hope “that the great mobilisations of state resources currently being unspooled to address Covid-19 prove the possibility of a comparable or greater mobilisation against ecological catastrophe” (Clover, 2021 , p. S28). Nevertheless, the climate emergency has only recently been labelled thus and its perceived and mediatised urgency does not match that of Covid-19, though of course its destructive potential is far greater. The debate on science and knowledge in our societies and the ways in which these discourses are structured and mediated in social networks are thus of prime importance.

Aiello LM, Quercia D, Zhou K, Constantinides M, Šćepanović S, Joglekar S (2021) How epidemic psychology works on social media: evolution of responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 8:179.

Article   Google Scholar  

Altheide D (2000) Identity and the definition of the situation in a mass-mediated context. Symb Interact 23(1):1–27.

Anderson B (1983) Imagined communities: reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. Verso, London

Google Scholar  

Ausserhofer J, Maireder A (2013) National politics on Twitter: structures and topics of a networked public sphere. Inf Commun Soc 16(3):291–314.

Badhken A (2020) The pandemic, our common story. Granta. . Accessed 11 Oct 2021

Baxter LA (2011) Voicing relationships: a dialogic perspective. SAGE, London

Book   Google Scholar  

Berger PL, Luckmann T (1966) The social construction of reality: a treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Penguin Books, London

Bhopal R, Munro APS (2021) Scholarly communications harmed by Covid-19. Br Med J 372:742.

Bruns A (2019) Are filter bubbles real? Polity, Cambridge

Bruns A, Highfield T (2016) Is Habermas on Twitter? Social media and the public sphere. In: Enli G, Bruns A, Skogerbo E, Larsson AO, Christensen C (eds) The Routledge companion to social media and politics. Routledge, Abingdon, pp. 56–73

Butter M (2018) “Nichts ist, wie es scheint”: Über Verschwörungstheorien. Suhrkamp, Berlin

Butter M, Knight P (2016) Bridging the great divide: conspiracy theory research for the 21st century. Diogenes 62(3–4):17–29. 10.1177/0392192116669289

Cameron D (1995) Verbal hygiene. Routledge, Abingdon

Casas-Cortés MI, Osterweil M, Powell DE (2008) Blurring boundaries: recognising knowledge-practices in the study of social movements. Anthropol Q 81(1):17–58.

Chen E, Lerman K, Ferrara E (2020) Tracking social media discourse about the COVID-19 pandemic: development of a public coronavirus twitter data set. JMIR Public Health Surveill 6(2):e19273.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Clarke L (2020) Why scientists fear the “toxic” Covid-19 debate. New Statesman. . Accessed 11 Oct 2021

Clover J (2021) The rise and fall of biopolitics: a response to Bruno Latour. Crit Inq 47(S2):S28–S32.

Davey Smith G, Blastland M, Munafò M (2020) Covid-19’s known unknowns. Br Med J 371:m3979.

Della Porta D, Pavan E (2017) Repertoires of knowledge practices: social movements in times of crisis. Qual Res Organ Manag 12(4):297–314.

Engler P (2020) Coronavirus is a historic trigger event—and it needs a movement to respond. Waging Nonviolence. . Accessed 11 Oct 2021

Esses VM, Hamilton LK (2021) Xenophobia and anti-immigrant attitudes in the time of COVID-19. Group Process Intergroup Relat 24(2):253–59.

Esteves AM (2008) Processes of knowledge production in social movements as multi-level power dynamics. Sociol Compass 2(6):1934–1953.

European Court of Human Rights (2021) ECHR President: Polarisation and Covid-19 threaten difficult times ahead. Council of Europe. . Accessed 11 Oct 2021

Fischer F (2000) Citizens, experts, and the environment: the politics of local knowledge. Duke University Press, Durham

Foucault M (1980) Truth and power. In: Gordon C (ed) Power/knowledge: selected interviews and other writings 1972–1977. The Harvester Press, Brighton, pp. 107–133

Foucault M (1981) The order of discourse. In: Young R (ed) Untying the text: a post-structuralist reader. Routledge, Abingdon, pp. 48–78

Furedi F (2020) Why the government should not always “follow the science”. Spiked. . Accessed 11 Oct 2021

Gallwitz F, Kreil M (2021) The rise and fall of “Social Bot” research. SSRN. . Accessed 11 Oct 2021

Gee JP (2011) An introduction to discourse analysis: theory and method, 3rd edn. Routledge, Abingdon

Habermas J (1972) Knowledge and human interests (trans: Shapiro JJ). Heineman, London

Harari YN (2021) Lessons from a year of Covid. Financial Times. . Accessed 11 Oct 2021.

Hart C, Cap P (2014) Introduction. In: Hart C, Cap P (eds) Contemporary critical discourse studies. Bloomsbury, London, p 1–16

Howarth CC, Sharman AG (2015) Labeling opinions in the climate debate: a critical review. WIREs Clim Change 6(2):239–254.

Husting G (2018) Governing with feeling: conspiracy theories, contempt, and affective governmentality. In: Dentith MRX (ed) Taking conspiracy theories seriously. Rowman & Littlefield International, Lanham, pp. 109–123

Husting G, Orr M (2007) Dangerous machinery: “Conspiracy Theorist” as a transpersonal strategy of exclusion. Symb Interact 30(2):127–150.

Katsambekis G, Stavrakakis Y (2020) Populism and the pandemic: introduction and preliminary findings. In: Katsambekis G, Stavrakakis Y (eds) Populism and the pandemic: a collaborative report. POPULISMUS, Thessaloniki, pp. 3–9

Kligler-Vilenchik N, Baden C, Yarchi M (2020) Interpretative polarisation across platforms: How political disagreement developes over time on Facebook, Twitter, and WhatsApp. Soc Media+Soc 6(3):1–13.

Knorr-Cetina K (1977) Producing and reproducing knowledge: descriptive or constructive? Soc Sci Inf 16(6):669–96

Knorr-Cetina K (1999) Epistemic cultures: how the sciences make knowledge. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

Krämer B (2017) Populist online practices: the function of the Internet in right-wing populism. Inf Commun Soc 20(9):1293–1309.

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Lee JK, Choi J, Kim C, Kim Y (2014) Social media, network heterogeneity, and opinion polarisation. J Commun 64(4):702–722.

Madrigal AC (2020) How to misinform yourself about the coronavirus. The Atlantic. . Accessed 11 Oct 2021

Mahanty S, Phillipps N (2020) The community-led movement creating hope in the time of coronavirus. The Conversation. .

Martin GP, Hanna E, McCartney M, Dingwall R (2020) Science, society, and policy in the face of uncertainty: Reflections on the debate around face coverings for the public during COVID-19. Crit Public Health 30(5):501–508.

Martin JR, White PRR (2005) The language of evaluation: appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke

Marwick A, Kuo R, Cameron SJ, Weigel M (2021) Critical disinformation studies: a syllabus. Center for Information, Technology, and Public Life. . Accessed 11 Oct 2021

McCullock G (2019) Because Internet: understanding the new rules of language. Riverhead Books, New York

Milanović B (2020) The first global event in the history of humankind. IPS. . Accessed 11 Oct 2021

Miller SL (2021) Are you ready for the climate lockdowns? It’s only a matter of time. The Spectator. . Accessed 11 Oct 2021

Mills S (2004) Discourse, 2nd edn. Routledge, Abingdon

Nguyen MH, Gruber J, Fuchs J, Marler W, Hunsaker A, Hargittai E (2020) Changes in digital communication during the COVID-19 global pandemic: implications for digital inequality and future research. Soc Media+Soc 6(3)

Papacharissi Z (2002) The virtual sphere: the Internet as a public sphere. New Media Soc 4(1):9–27.

Pariser E (2011) The filter bubble: what the internet is hiding from you. Penguin Press, London

Pavan E, Felicetti A (2019) Digital media and knowledge production within social movements: insights from the transition movement in Italy. Soc Media+Soc 5(4):1–12.

Pennycook A (2001) Critical applied linguistics: a critical introduction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah

Pérez-González L (2020a) “Is climate science taking over the science?” A corpus-based study of competing stances on bias, dogma and expertise in the blogosphere. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 7:92.

Pérez-González L (2020b) “The government is following the science”: why is the translation of evidence into policy generating so much controversy? London School of Economics Blogs. . Accessed 11 Oct 2021

Pierce K (2021) “Follow the science” and other principles of Biden’s pandemic response plan. The HUB. . Accessed 11 Oct 2021

Raynaud M, Zhang H, Louis K, Goutaudier V, Wang J, Dubourg Q, Wei Y, Demir Z, Debiais C, Aubert O, Bouatou Y, Lefaucheur C, Jabre P, Liu L, Wang C, Jouven X, Reese P, Empana JP, Loupy A (2021) Covid-19-related medical research: a meta-research and critical appraisal. BMC Med Res Methodol 21(1):1–11. 10.1186/s12874-020-01190-w

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Rijs C, Fenter F (2020) The academic response to COVID-19. Front Public Health 8:621563.

Robinson A (2011) Bakhtin: dialogism, polyphony and heteroglossia. Ceasefire. . Accessed 11 Oct 2021

Rosenberg CE (1989) What is an epidemic? AIDS in historical perspective. Daedalus 118(2):1–17

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Science+Story (2020) Eric Feigl-Ding is good at Twitter. Sci+Story. . Accessed 11 Oct 2021

Simons H (1994) “Going meta”: definition and political applications. Q J Speech 80(4):468–481.

Sitrin M, Colectiva Sembrar (2020) Pandemic solidarity. Pluto Books, London

Stevens A (2007) Survival of the ideas that fit: an evolutionary analogy for the use of evidence in policy. Soc Policy Soc 6(1):25–35.

Stevens A (2020) Governments cannot just “follow the science” on COVID-19. Nat Hum Behav 4:560.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Strong P (1990) Epidemic psychology: a model. Sociol Health Illn 12(3):249–259.

Taber CS, Lodge M (2006) Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. Am J Political Sci 50(3):755–769.

Taylor C (2010) Science in the news: a diachronic perspective. Corpora 5(2):221–250.

Tomasello M (2008) Origins of human communication. MIT Press, Cambridge

Torjesen I (2021) Covid-19: Sweden vows greater protection for academics as researcher quits after aggressive social media attack. Br Med J 372:489.

Tsao SF, Chen H, Tisseverasinghe T, Yang Y, Li L, Butt ZA (2021) What social media told us in the time of COVID-19: a scoping review. Lancet Digit Health 3(3):e175–e194.

Tucker JA, Guess A, Barberá P, Vaccari C, Siegel A, Sanovich S, Stukal D, Nyhan B (2018) Social media, political polarisation, and political disinformation: a review of the scientific literature. SSRN. . Accessed 11 Oct 2021

Vogel F (2018) Jenseits des Sagbaren: Zum stigmatisierenden und ausgrenzenden Gebrauch des Ausdrucks Verschwörungstheorie in der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia. Aptum: Z Sprachkrit Sprachkult 14(3):259–287

Weisberg DS, Landrum AR, Hamilton J, Weisberg M (2021) Knowledge about the nature of science increases public acceptance of science regardless of identity factors. Public Underst Sci 30(2):120–138.

Wojcieszak M, Rojas H (2011) Correlates of party, ideology and issue based extremity in an era of egocentric publics. Int J Press/Politics 16(4):488–507.

Wood MJ (2016) Some dare call it conspiracy: Labeling something a conspiracy theory does not reduce belief in it. Political Psychol 37(5):695–705.

Yang A (2021) Politicisation and polarisation of Covid-19. Frontiers. . Accessed 11 Oct 2021

Download references


This work is part of the project Frames and narratives of translation and of migration in Europe , funded by the Spanish Ministry for Science, Innovation and Universities (MCIU) and the Agencia Estatal de Investigación (AEI), with grant number PID2019-107971GA-I00.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain

Mario Bisiada

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mario Bisiada .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Bisiada, M. Discursive structures and power relations in Covid-19 knowledge production. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 8 , 248 (2021).

Download citation

Received : 12 July 2021

Accepted : 12 October 2021

Published : 28 October 2021


Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

  • Explore articles by subject
  • Guide to authors
  • Editorial policies

discursive essay about social media pdf

Home — Essay Samples — Sociology — Sociology of Media and Communication — Social Media

one px

Argumentative Essays About Social Media

This is a comprehensive resource to help you find the perfect social media essay topic. Whether you're navigating the complexities of digital communication, exploring the impact of social media on society, or examining its effects on personal identity, the right topic can transform your essay into a captivating and insightful exploration. Remember, selecting a topic that resonates with your personal interests and academic goals not only makes the writing process more enjoyable but also enriches your learning experience. Let's dive into a world of creativity and critical thinking!

Essay Types and Topics

Below, you'll find a curated list of essay topics organized by type. Each section includes diverse topics that touch on technology, society, personal growth, and academic interests, along with introduction and conclusion paragraph examples to get you started.

Argumentative Essays

Introduction Example: "In the digital age, social media platforms have become central to our daily interactions and self-perception, particularly among teenagers. This essay explores the impact of social media on teen self-esteem, arguing that while it offers a space for expression and connection, it also presents significant challenges to self-image. "

Conclusion Example: "Having delved into the complex relationship between social media and teen self-esteem, it is clear that the digital landscape holds profound effects on individual self-perception. This essay reaffirms the thesis that social media can both uplift and undermine teen self-esteem, calling for a balanced approach to digital engagement."

Introduction Example: "As political landscapes evolve, social media has emerged as a powerful tool for political mobilization and engagement. This essay investigates the role of social media in shaping political movements, positing that it significantly enhances communication and organizational capabilities, yet raises questions about information authenticity. "

Conclusion Example: "Through examining the dual facets of social media in political mobilization, the essay concludes that while social media is a pivotal tool for engagement, it necessitates critical scrutiny of information to ensure a well-informed public discourse."

Compare and Contrast Essays

Introduction Example: "In the competitive realm of digital marketing, Instagram and Twitter stand out as leading platforms for brand promotion. This essay compares and contrasts their effectiveness, revealing that each platform caters to unique marketing strengths due to its specific user engagement and content dissemination strategies. "

Conclusion Example: "The comparative analysis of Instagram and Twitter highlights distinct advantages for brands, with Instagram excelling in visual storytelling and Twitter in real-time engagement, underscoring the importance of strategic platform selection in digital marketing."

Descriptive Essays

Introduction Example: "Today's social media landscape is a vibrant tapestry of platforms, each contributing to the digital era's social fabric. This essay describes the characteristics and cultural significance of current social media trends, illustrating that they reflect and shape our societal values and interactions. "

Conclusion Example: "In portraying the dynamic and diverse nature of today's social media landscape, this essay underscores its role in molding contemporary cultural and social paradigms, inviting readers to reflect on their digital footprints."

Persuasive Essays

Introduction Example: "In an era where digital presence is ubiquitous, fostering positive social media habits is essential for mental and emotional well-being. This essay advocates for mindful social media use, arguing that intentional engagement can enhance our life experiences rather than detract from them. "

Conclusion Example: "This essay has championed the cause for positive social media habits, reinforcing the thesis that through mindful engagement, individuals can navigate the digital world in a way that promotes personal growth and well-being."

Narrative Essays

Introduction Example: "Embarking on a personal journey with social media has been both enlightening and challenging. This narrative essay delves into my experiences, highlighting how social media has influenced my perception of self and community. "

Conclusion Example: "Reflecting on my social media journey, this essay concludes that while it has significantly shaped my interactions and self-view, it has also offered invaluable lessons on connectivity and self-awareness, affirming the nuanced role of digital platforms in our lives."

Engagement and Creativity

As you explore these topics, remember to approach your essay with an open mind and creative spirit. The purpose of academic writing is not just to inform but to engage and provoke thought. Use this opportunity to delve deep into your topic, analyze different perspectives, and articulate your own insights.

Educational Value

Each essay type offers unique learning outcomes. Argumentative essays enhance your analytical thinking and ability to construct well-founded arguments. Compare and contrast essays develop your skills in identifying similarities and differences. Descriptive essays improve your ability to paint vivid pictures through words, while persuasive essays refine your ability to influence and convince. Finally, narrative essays offer a platform for personal expression and storytelling. Embrace these opportunities to grow academically and personally.

Impacts of Social Media on Human Relationships

The impact of psychology: reflections on social media and mental health, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

Persuasive on Snapchat

Social media is beneficial to the mankind, the detrimental effects of social media on the young generation, the effect of social media challenges on current generation, let us write you an essay from scratch.

  • 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
  • Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Pros and Cons of Social Media: Social Networking

Positive and negative effects of social media, sleeping habits and social media usage, negative effect of social media on young people, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

The List of Pros and Cons of Social Media

The importance of staying safe on social media, impact of social media on our lives, social media: negative effects and addiction, discussion on whether is social media beneficial or harmful for society, negative effects of social media: relationships and communication, social media pros and cons, social media - good and bad sides, a study of the role of social media concerning confidentiality of personal data, how social media causes stereotyping, social media addiction: consequences and strategies for recovery, the role of social media in making us more narcissistic, the effect social media is having on today's society and political atmosphere, digital/social media, censorship in social media, why teenagers are addicted to social media and how it affects them, advantages and disadvantages of social media for society, enormous impact of mass media on children, the role of social media in the current business world, social media is the reason for many of the world’s problems and solutions.

Social media refers to dynamic online platforms that enable individuals to actively engage in the generation and dissemination of various forms of content, including information, ideas, and personal interests. These interactive digital channels foster virtual communities and networks, allowing users to connect, communicate, and express themselves. By harnessing the power of technology, social media platforms provide a space for individuals to share and exchange content, fostering connections and facilitating the flow of information in an increasingly digital world.

In a peculiar manner, the inception of social media can be traced back to May 24, 1844, when a sequence of electronic dots and dashes was manually tapped on a telegraph machine. Although the origins of digital communication have deep historical roots, most contemporary narratives regarding the modern beginnings of the internet and social media often point to the emergence of the Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET) in 1969. The year 1987 witnessed the establishment of the direct precursor to today's internet, as the National Science Foundation introduced the more robust and expansive NSFNET, a nationwide digital network. A significant milestone occurred in 1997 when Six Degrees, the first genuine social media platform, was launched.

Mark Zuckerberg is a notable figure in the realm of social media as the co-founder and CEO of Facebook. Zuckerberg played a pivotal role in transforming Facebook from a small networking platform for college students into a global social media giant with billions of users. His innovative ideas and strategic decisions have reshaped the way people connect and share information online, making him one of the most influential individuals in the digital age. Jack Dorsey is recognized as one of the key pioneers of social media, notably for co-founding Twitter. Dorsey's creation revolutionized online communication by introducing the concept of microblogging, allowing users to share short messages in real-time. Twitter quickly gained popularity, becoming a powerful platform for news dissemination, public conversations, and social movements. Dorsey's entrepreneurial spirit and vision have contributed significantly to the evolution of social media and its impact on society. Sheryl Sandberg is a prominent figure in the social media landscape, known for her influential role as the Chief Operating Officer (COO) of Facebook.Sandberg played a crucial part in scaling and monetizing Facebook's operations, transforming it into a global advertising powerhouse. She is also recognized for her advocacy of women's empowerment and leadership in the tech industry, inspiring countless individuals and promoting diversity and inclusion within the social media sphere. Sandberg's contributions have left an indelible mark on the growth and development of social media platforms worldwide.

Social Networking Sites: Facebook, LinkedIn, and MySpace. Microblogging Platforms: Twitter. Media Sharing Networks: Instagram, YouTube, and Snapchat. Discussion Forums and Community-Based Platforms: Reddit and Quora. Blogging Platforms: WordPress and Blogger. Social Bookmarking and Content Curation Platforms: Pinterest and Flipboard. Messaging Apps: WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, and WeChat.

Facebook (2004), Reddit (2005), Twitter (2006), Instagram (2010), Pinterest (2010), Snapchat (2011), TikTok (2016)

1. Increased Connectivity 2. Information Sharing and Awareness 3. Networking and Professional Opportunities 4. Creativity and Self-Expression 5. Supportive Communities and Causes

1. Privacy Concerns 2. Cyberbullying and Online Harassment 3. Information Overload and Misinformation 4. Time and Productivity Drain 5. Comparison and Self-Esteem Issues

The topic of social media holds significant importance for students as it plays a prominent role in their lives, both academically and socially. Social media platforms provide students with opportunities to connect, collaborate, and share knowledge with peers, expanding their learning networks beyond the confines of the classroom. It facilitates communication and access to educational resources, allowing students to stay updated on academic trends and research. Additionally, social media enhances digital literacy and prepares students for the realities of the digital age. However, it is crucial for students to develop critical thinking skills to navigate the potential pitfalls of social media, such as misinformation and online safety, ensuring a responsible and balanced use of these platforms.

The topic of social media is worthy of being explored in an essay due to its profound impact on various aspects of society. Writing an essay on social media allows for an in-depth examination of its influence on communication, relationships, information sharing, and societal dynamics. It offers an opportunity to analyze the advantages and disadvantages, exploring topics such as privacy, online identities, social activism, and the role of social media in shaping cultural norms. Additionally, studying social media enables a critical evaluation of its effects on mental health, politics, and business. By delving into this subject, one can gain a comprehensive understanding of the complex and ever-evolving digital landscape we inhabit.

1. Social media users spend an average of 2 hours and 25 minutes per day on social networking platforms. This amounts to over 7 years of an individual's lifetime spent on social media, highlighting its significant presence in our daily lives. 2. Instagram has over 1 billion monthly active users, with more than 500 million of them using the platform on a daily basis. 3. YouTube has over 2 billion logged-in monthly active users. On average, users spend over 1 billion hours watching YouTube videos every day, emphasizing the platform's extensive reach and the power of video content. 4. Social media has become a major news source, with 48% of people getting their news from social media platforms. This shift in news consumption highlights the role of social media in shaping public opinion and disseminating information in real-time. 5. Influencer marketing has grown exponentially, with 63% of marketers planning to increase their influencer marketing budget in the coming year. This showcases the effectiveness of influencers in reaching and engaging with target audiences, and the value brands place on leveraging social media personalities to promote their products or services.

1. Schober, M. F., Pasek, J., Guggenheim, L., Lampe, C., & Conrad, F. G. (2016). Social media analyses for social measurement. Public opinion quarterly, 80(1), 180-211. ( 2. Appel, G., Grewal, L., Hadi, R., & Stephen, A. T. (2020). The future of social media in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing science, 48(1), 79-95. ( 3. Aichner, T., Grünfelder, M., Maurer, O., & Jegeni, D. (2021). Twenty-five years of social media: a review of social media applications and definitions from 1994 to 2019. Cyberpsychology, behavior, and social networking, 24(4), 215-222. ( 4. Ruths, D., & Pfeffer, J. (2014). Social media for large studies of behavior. Science, 346(6213), 1063-1064. ( 5. Hou, Y., Xiong, D., Jiang, T., Song, L., & Wang, Q. (2019). Social media addiction: Its impact, mediation, and intervention. Cyberpsychology: Journal of psychosocial research on cyberspace, 13(1). ( 6. Auxier, B., & Anderson, M. (2021). Social media use in 2021. Pew Research Center, 1, 1-4. ( 7. Al-Samarraie, H., Bello, K. A., Alzahrani, A. I., Smith, A. P., & Emele, C. (2021). Young users' social media addiction: causes, consequences and preventions. Information Technology & People, 35(7), 2314-2343. ( 8. Bhargava, V. R., & Velasquez, M. (2021). Ethics of the attention economy: The problem of social media addiction. Business Ethics Quarterly, 31(3), 321-359. (

Relevant topics

  • Media Analysis
  • Effects of Social Media
  • Sociological Imagination
  • Discourse Community
  • Social Justice
  • Sex, Gender and Sexuality
  • Cultural Appropriation
  • American Identity

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!


We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

  • Instructions Followed To The Letter
  • Deadlines Met At Every Stage
  • Unique And Plagiarism Free

discursive essay about social media pdf

Logo for Open Textbooks @ UQ

26 Planning a Discursive Essay

Discursive essay – description.

A discursive essay is a form of critical essay that attempts to provide the reader with a balanced argument on a topic, supported by evidence. It requires critical thinking, as well as sound and valid arguments (see Chapter 25) that acknowledge and analyse arguments both for and against any given topic, plus discursive essay writing appeals to reason, not emotions or opinions. While it may draw some tentative conclusions, based on evidence, the main aim of a discursive essay is to inform the reader of the key arguments and allow them to arrive at their own conclusion.

The writer needs to research the topic thoroughly to present more than one perspective and should check their own biases and assumptions through critical reflection (see Chapter 30).

Unlike persuasive writing, the writer does not need to have knowledge of the audience, though should write using academic tone and language (see Chapter 20).

Choose Your Topic Carefully

A basic guide to choosing an assignment topic is available in Chapter 23, however choosing a topic for a discursive essay means considering more than one perspective. Not only do you need to find information about the topic via academic sources, you need to be able to construct a worthwhile discussion, moving from idea to idea. Therefore, more forward planning is required. The following are decisions that need to be considered when choosing a discursive essay topic:

  • These will become the controlling ideas for your three body paragraphs (some essays may require more). Each controlling idea will need arguments both for and against.
  • For example, if my topic is “renewable energy” and my three main (controlling) ideas are “cost”, “storage”, “environmental impact”, then I will need to consider arguments both for and against each of these three concepts. I will also need to have good academic sources with examples or evidence to support my claim and counter claim for each controlling idea (More about this in Chapter 27).
  • Am I able to write a thesis statement about this topic based on the available research? In other words, do my own ideas align with the available research, or am I going to be struggling to support my own ideas due to a lack of academic sources or research? You need to be smart about your topic choice. Do not make it harder than it has to be. Writing a discursive essay is challenging enough without struggling to find appropriate sources.
  • For example, perhaps I find a great academic journal article about the uptake of solar panel installation in suburban Australia and how this household decision is cost-effective long-term, locally stored, and has minimal, even beneficial environmental impact due to the lowering of carbon emissions. Seems too good to be true, yet it is perfect for my assignment. I would have to then find arguments AGAINST everything in the article that supports transitioning suburbs to solar power. I would have to challenge the cost-effectiveness, the storage, and the environmental impact study. Now, all of a sudden my task just became much more challenging.
  • There may be vast numbers of journal articles written about your topic, but consider how relevant they may be to your tentative thesis statement. It takes a great deal of time to search for appropriate academic sources. Do you have a good internet connection at home or will you need to spend some quality time at the library? Setting time aside to complete your essay research is crucial for success.

It is only through complete forward planning about the shape and content of your essay that you may be able to choose the topic that best suits your interests, academic ability and time management. Consider how you will approach the overall project, not only the next step.

Research Your Topic

When completing a library search for online peer reviewed journal articles, do not forget to use Boolean Operators to refine or narrow your search field. Standard Boolean Operators are (capitalized) AND, OR and NOT. While using OR will expand your search, AND and NOT will reduce the scope of your search. For example, if I want information on ageism and care giving, but I only want it to relate to the elderly, I might use the following to search a database: ageism AND care NOT children. Remember to keep track of your search strings (like the one just used) and then you’ll know what worked and what didn’t as you come and go from your academic research.

The UQ Library provides an excellent step-by-step guide to searching databases:

Searching in databases – Library – University of Queensland (

Did you know that you can also link the UQ Library to Google Scholar? This link tells you how:

Google Scholar – Library – University of Queensland (

Write the Thesis Statement

The concept of a thesis statement was introduced in Chapter 21. The information below relates specifically to a discursive essay thesis statement.

As noted in the introduction to this chapter, the discursive essay should not take a stance and therefore the thesis statement must also impartially indicate more than one perspective. The goal is to present both sides of an argument equally and allow the reader to make an informed and well-reasoned choice after providing supporting evidence for each side of the argument.

Sample thesis statements: Solar energy is a cost -effective solution to burning fossil fuels for electricity , however lower income families cannot afford the installation costs .

Some studies indicate that teacher comments written in red may have no effect on students’ emotions , however other studies suggest that seeing red ink on papers could cause some students unnecessary stress. [1]

According to social justice principles, education should be available to all , yet historically, the intellectually and physically impaired may have been exempt from participation due to their supposed inability to learn. [2]

This is where your pros and cons list comes into play. For each pro, or positive statement you make, about your topic, create an equivalent con, or negative statement and this will enable you to arrive at two opposing assertions – the claim and counter claim.

While there may be multiple arguments or perspectives related to your essay topic, it is important that you match each claim with a counter-claim. This applies to the thesis statement and each supporting argument within the body paragraphs of the essay.

It is not just a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. A neutral tone is crucial. Do not include positive or negative leading statements, such as “It is undeniable that…” or “One should not accept the view that…”. You are NOT attempting to persuade the reader to choose one viewpoint over another.

Leading statements / language will be discussed further, in class, within term three of the Academic English course.

Thesis Structure:

  • Note the two sides (indicated in green and orange)
  • Note the use of tentative language: “Some studies”, “may have”, “could cause”, “some students”
  • As the thesis is yet to be discussed in-depth, and you are not an expert in the field, do not use definitive language
  • The statement is also one sentence, with a “pivot point” in the middle, with a comma and signposting to indicate a contradictory perspective (in black). Other examples include, nevertheless, though, although, regardless, yet, albeit. DO NOT use the word “but” as it lacks academic tone. Some signposts (e.g., although, though, while) may be placed at the start of the two clauses rather than in the middle – just remember the comma, for example, “While some studies suggest solar energy is cost-effective, other critical research questions its affordability.”
  • Also note that it is based on preliminary research and not opinion: “some studies”, “other studies”, “according to social justice principles”, “critical research”.

Claims and Counter Claims

NOTE: Please do not confuse the words ‘claim’ and ‘counter-claim’ with moral or value judgements about right/wrong, good/bad, successful/unsuccessful, or the like. The term ‘claim’ simply refers to the first position or argument you put forward (whether for or against), and ‘counter-claim’ is the alternate position or argument.

In a discursive essay the goal is to present both sides equally and then draw some tentative conclusions based on the evidence presented.

  • To formulate your claims and counter claims, write a list of pros and cons.
  • For each pro there should be a corresponding con.
  • Three sets of pros and cons will be required for your discursive essay. One set for each body paragraph. These become your claims and counter claims.
  • For a longer essay, you would need further claims and counter claims.
  • Some instructors prefer students to keep the pros and cons in the same order across the body paragraphs. Each paragraph would then have a pro followed by a con or else a con followed by a pro. The order should align with your thesis; if the thesis gives a pro view of the topic followed by a negative view (con) then the paragraphs should also start with the pro and follow with the con, or else vice versa. If not aligned and consistent, the reader may easily become confused as the argument proceeds. Ask your teacher if this is a requirement for your assessment.

discursive essay about social media pdf

Use previous chapters to explore your chosen topic through concept mapping (Chapter 18) and essay outlining (Chapter 19), with one variance; you must include your proposed claims and counter claims in your proposed paragraph structures. What follows is a generic model for a discursive essay. The following Chapter 27 will examine this in further details.

Sample Discursive Essay Outline 

The paragraphs are continuous; the dot-points are only meant to indicate content.


  • Thesis statement
  • Essay outline (including 3 controlling ideas)

Body Paragraphs X 3 (Elaboration and evidence will be more than one sentence, though the topic, claim and counter claim should be succinct)

  • T opic sentence, including 1/3 controlling ideas (the topic remains the same throughout the entire essay; it is the controlling idea that changes)
  • A claim/assertion about the controlling idea
  • E laboration – more information about the claim
  • E vidence -academic research (Don’t forget to tell the reader how / why the evidence supports the claim. Be explicit in your E valuation rather than assuming the connection is obvious to the reader)
  • A counter claim (remember it must be COUNTER to the claim you made, not about something different)
  • E laboration – more information about the counter claim
  • E vidence – academic research (Don’t forget to tell the reader how / why the evidence supports the claim. Be explicit in your E valuation rather than assuming the connection is obvious to the reader)
  • Concluding sentence – L inks back to the topic and/or the next controlling idea in the following paragraph

Mirror the introduction. The essay outline should have stated the plan for the essay – “This essay will discuss…”, therefore the conclusion should identify that this has been fulfilled, “This essay has discussed…”, plus summarise the controlling ideas and key arguments. ONLY draw tentative conclusions BOTH for and against, allowing the reader to make up their own mind about the topic. Also remember to re-state the thesis in the conclusion. If it is part of the marking criteria, you should also include a recommendation or prediction about the future use or cost/benefit of the chosen topic/concept.

A word of warning, many students fall into the generic realm of stating that there should be further research on their topic or in the field of study. This is a gross statement of the obvious as all academia is ongoing. Try to be more practical with your recommendations and also think about who would instigate them and where the funding might come from.

This chapter gives an overview of what a discursive essay is and a few things to consider when choosing your topic. It also provides a generic outline for a discursive essay structure. The following chapter examines the structure in further detail.

  • Inez, S. M. (2018, September 10). What is a discursive essay, and how do you write a good one? Kibin. ↵
  • Hale, A., & Basides, H. (2013). The keys to academic English. Palgrave ↵

researched, reliable, written by academics and published by reputable publishers; often, but not always peer reviewed

assertion, maintain as fact

The term ‘claim’ simply refers to the first position or argument you put forward (whether for or against), and ‘counter-claim’ is the alternate position or argument.

Academic Writing Skills Copyright © 2021 by Patricia Williamson is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Book cover

Discourse and Education pp 267–281 Cite as

Discourse Communities: From Origins to Social Media

  • Deoksoon Kim 5 &
  • Oksana Vorobel 6  
  • Reference work entry
  • First Online: 08 June 2017

1611 Accesses

2 Citations

Part of the book series: Encyclopedia of Language and Education ((ELE))

Discourse communities, their characteristic features and communicative routines, have long been a focus of research. The expansion of technology has changed discourse communities, however, because a much broader set of members can now participate in them. Contemporary research has begun to explore how technology-mediated discourse communities form and change, as well as how they serve educational and other social functions. In this chapter, we review research on discourse communities, focusing on the various changes that mediated online environments such as social media have brought to contemporary discourse communities. We also describe advances in and the challenges of conducting research on discourse communities established through social media.

  • Academic discourse
  • Computer-mediated discourse
  • Digital discourse
  • Discourse communities
  • Language socialization
  • Social media

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Buying options

  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Baker, P. (2010). Sociolinguistics and corpus linguistics . Edinburgh: Edinburgh university press.

Google Scholar  

Barton, D. (2015). Tagging on Flickr as a social practice. In R. H. Jones, A. Chik, & C. A. Hafner (Eds.), Discourse and digital practices: Doing discourse analysis in the digital age (pp. 48–65). New York: Routledge.

Barton, D., & Lee, C. (2013). Language online: Investigating digital texts and practices . London: Routledge.

Beaufort, A. (1997). Operationalizing the concept of discourse community: A case study of one institutional site of composing. Research in the Teaching of English, 31 (4), 486–529. Retrieved from .

Benson, P. (2015). YouTube as text: Spoken interaction analysis and digital discourse. In R. H. Jones, A. Chik, & C. A. Hafner (Eds.), Discourse and digital practices: Doing discourse analysis in the digital age (pp. 81–96). New York: Routledge.

Bizzell, P. (1982). College composition: Initiation into the academic discourse community. Curriculum Inquiry, 12 (2), 191–207. Retrieved from

Carrington, V. (2015). “It’s changed my life:” iPhone as technological artefact. In R. H. Jones, A. Chik, & C. A. Hafner (Eds.), Discourse and digital practices: Doing discourse analysis in the digital age (pp. 158–174). New York: Routledge.

Carrington, V., & Dowdall, C. (2013). This is a job for Hazmat Guy! Global media cultures and children’s everyday lives. In C. Hall, T. Cremen, B. Comber, & L. Moll (Eds.), International handbook of research in children’s literacy, learning and culture (pp. 96–107). London: Wiley-Blackwell.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Cherny, L. (1999). Conversation and community: Chat in a virtual world . CSLI Publications.

Clayton, M. J., Hettche, M., & Kim, D.-H. (2014). Moving participation beyond the classroom: Who benefits from online social communities? Journal of Advertising Education , 18 (1), 5–13. Retrieved from

Cooper, M. (1989). Why are we talking about discourse communities? Or functionalism rears its ugly head once more. In M. Cooper & M. Holzman (Eds.), Writing as social action (pp. 202–220). Portsmouth: Boynton/Cook.

Crystal, D. (2001). Language and the Internet . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Duff, P. A. (2010). Language socialization into academic discourse communities. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30 , 169–192. doi:10.1017/S0267190510000048.

Article   Google Scholar  

Edens, K. M., & Gallini, J. K. (2000). Developing a discourse community of preservice teachers in a technology-mediated context. Teacher Educator, 35 (4), 64–82. doi:10.1080/08878730009555238.

Farabaugh, R. (2007). ‘The isle is full of noises’: Using wiki software to establish a discourse community in a Shakespeare classroom. Language Awareness, 16 (1), 41–56. doi:10.2167/la428.0.

Ferrara, K., Brunner, H., & Whittemore, G. (1991). Interactive written discourse as an emergent register. Written Communication , 8 (1), 8–34. doi:10.1177/0741088391008001002.

Fisher, L., & Kim, D. (2013). Two approaches to the use of blogs in pre-service foreign language teachers’ professional development: A comparative study in the context of two universities in the U.K and the U.S. Language Learning Journal, 41 , 142–160. doi:10.1080/09571736.2013.790130.

Gee, P. (2005). Semiotic social spaces and affinity spaces: From the Age of Mythology to today’s schools. In D. Barton & K. Tusting (Eds.), Beyond communities of practice language power and social context (pp. 214–232). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gee, J. P. (2008). Learning and games. In K. Salen (Ed.), The ecology of games: Connecting youth, games, and learning (pp. 21–40). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Gee, J. P. (2015). Discourse analysis of games. In R. H. Jones, A. Chik, & C. A. Hafner (Eds.), Discourse and digital practices: Doing discourse analysis in the digital age (pp. 18–27). New York: Routledge.

Hafner, C. A. (2015). Co-constructing identity in virtual worlds for children. In R. H. Jones, A. Chik, & C. A. Hafner (Eds.), Discourse and digital practices: Doing discourse analysis in the digital age (pp. 97–111). New York: Routledge.

Harris, J. (1989). The idea of community in the study of writing. College Composition and Communication, 40 , 11–37. doi:10.2307/358177.

Herring, S. C. (2007). A faceted classification scheme for computer-mediated discourse. Language@Internet .

Herring, S. C., & Androutsopoulos, J. (2015). Computer-mediated discourse 2.0. In D. Tannen, H. E. Hamilton, & D. Schiffrin (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (2nd ed., pp. 127–151). Hoboken: Wiley. doi:10.1002/9781118584194.ch6.

Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In C. J. Brumfit & K. Johnson (Eds.), The communicative approach to language teaching (pp. 5–26). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jones, R. (2011). C me Sk8: Discourse, technology and bodies without organs. In C. Thrulow & K. Mroczek (Eds.), Digital discourse: Language in the new media (pp. 321–339). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jones, R. H. (2015). Discourse, cybernetics, and the entextualisation of the self. In R. H. Jones, A. Chik, & C. A. Hafner (Eds.), Discourse and digital practices: Doing discourse analysis in the digital age (pp. 28–47). New York: Routledge.

Jones, R. H., Chik, A., & Hafner, C. A. (Eds.). (2015). Discourse and digital practices: Doing discourse analysis in the digital age . New York: Routledge.

Jürgens, P. (2012). Communities of communication: Making sense of the “social” in social media. Journal of Technology in Human Services, 30 , 186–203. doi:10.1080/15228835.2012.746079.

Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons, 53 (1), 59–68. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003.

Kim, D., & Jang, S. (2014). Dialogic practices in using podcasting and blogging tools for teachers seeking ESOL certificate. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 51 (1), 205–232. doi: 10.2190/EC.51.2.d.

Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lam, W. S. E. (2008). Language socialization in online communities. In P. Duff & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education , Language socialization (Vol. 4, pp. 301–312). New York: Springer.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Matsuda, P. K. (2002). Negotiation of identity and power in a Japanese online discourse community. Computers and Composition, 19 (1), 39–55. doi:10.1016/S8755-4615(02)00079-8.

Merchant, G. (2015). Apps, adults, and young children: Researching digital literacy practices in context. In R. H. Jones, A. Chik, & C. A. Hafner (Eds.), Discourse and digital practices: Doing discourse analysis in the digital age (pp. 144–157). New York: Routledge.

Potts, D. (2005). Pedagogy, purpose, and the second language learner in on-line communities. Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 62 (1), 137–160. doi:10.1353/cml.2005.0045.

Rogers, R. (2009). The end of the virtual. Digital methods . Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Schriner, D. K., & Rice, W. C. (1989). Computer conferencing and collaborative learning: A discourse community at work. College Composition and Communication, 40 (4), 472–478. doi:10.2307/358247.

Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Tannen, D., & Trester, A. M. (Eds.). (2013). Discourse 2.0: Language and new media . Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Thorne, S. L., Sauro, S., & Smith, B. (2015). Technologies, identities, and expressive activity. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , 35 , 215–233. doi:10.1017/S0267190514000257.

Thurlow, C., & Mroczek, K. (2011). Digital discourse: Language in the new media . Oxford: Oxford University Press On demand.

van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning. A sociocultural perspective . Boston: Kluwer Academic.

Vásquez, C. (2015). Intertextuality and interdiscursivity in online consumer reviews. In R. H. Jones, A. Chik, & C. A. Hafner (Eds.), Discourse and digital practices: Doing discourse analysis in the digital age (pp. 66–80). New York: Routledge.

Verbeek, P. (2006). Acting artifacts: The technological mediation of action. In P. Verbeek & A. Slob (Eds.), User behavior and technology development: Shaping sustainable relations between consumers and technologies (pp. 53–60). Dordrecht: Springer.

Vossen, G., & Hagemann, S. (2010). Unleashing Web 2.0: From concepts to creativity . Elsevier.

Wortham, S., & Reyes, A. (2015). Discourse analysis beyond the speech event . New York: Routledge.

Yim, Y. K. K. (2011). Second language students’ discourse socialization in academic online communities. Canadian Modern Language Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 67 (1), 1–27. doi:10.3138/cmlr.67.1.001.

Zourou, K., & Lamy, M.-N. (2013). Introduction. In M.-N. Lamy & K. Zourou (Eds.), Social networking for language education (pp. 1–7). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Lynch School of Education, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, 02467, MA, USA

Deoksoon Kim

Borough of Manhattan Community College, Department of Academic Literacy and Linguistics, City University of New York, 199 Chambers Street, N481, New York, 10007, NY, USA

Oksana Vorobel

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Deoksoon Kim or Oksana Vorobel .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Lynch School of Education, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts, USA

Stanton Wortham

Faculty of Education and Social Work, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

Stephen May

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG (outside the USA)

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Kim, D., Vorobel, O. (2017). Discourse Communities: From Origins to Social Media. In: Wortham, S., Kim, D., May, S. (eds) Discourse and Education. Encyclopedia of Language and Education. Springer, Cham.

Download citation


Published : 08 June 2017

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-02242-0

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-02243-7

eBook Packages : Education Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Education

Share this entry

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

  • Publish with us

Policies and ethics

  • Find a journal
  • Track your research


AFS Programs

Get 5 FREE Sample Discursive Writing Templates in PDF

Get 5 FREE Sample Discursive Writing Templates in PDF

Welcome to our collection of FREE discursive writing templates! In this article, we provide you with 5 sample templates that you can download and use as a guide for your own writing exercises. Whether you are a student looking for examples to improve your skills, or a teacher searching for prompts to give your students, our templates are designed to help you get started with discursive writing.

Discursive writing is a form of written work that aims to present both sides of an argument or topic. It allows the writer to develop their thoughts, ideas, and arguments in a structured and logical manner. Discursive writing is often used in persuasive essays, reports, and debates, where the writer needs to consider different viewpoints and provide well-reasoned arguments.

Although discursive writing shares similarities with persuasive writing, it has its own unique format and considerations. In discursive writing, the writer uses language to explore a topic in depth, considering the positive and negative effects, as well as the rights and responsibilities of persons involved. The goal is to present a well-rounded and balanced argument that takes into account all relevant factors.

FREE Sample Discursive Writing Templates in PDF

When writing a discursive essay, it is crucial to have a clear thesis statement that clearly states your main argument or viewpoint. This statement guides the flow of the essay and helps keep the writer organized. In the body paragraphs, each paragraph should address a specific point or argument, providing evidence and examples to support it.

These templates are designed to make your work easier as a writer and help you connect your ideas in a logical and organized manner. They also serve as a source of inspiration for different types of discursive essays, whether it’s addressing socio-economic issues, government policies, civil rights, humanitarian concerns, or any other topic that requires a discursive approach.

When writing a discursive essay, there are certain dos and don’ts to keep in mind. Do make sure that your arguments are well-reasoned and supported by evidence. Do provide a balanced view and consider different perspectives. Don’t abuse or disrespect any individuals or groups. Don’t use bold, inflammatory statements that may offend or alienate the reader.

Discursive Writing Template for Students

Main arguments.

When writing your main arguments, make sure to maintain a logical flow and follow a clear structure. Each paragraph should focus on a single point, with introductory and concluding sentences to provide coherence and to enhance readability.

Effects and Considerations

While discussing the effects of the topic at hand, consider both the positive and negative aspects. Provide analysis and evaluation of the consequences, demonstrating your ability to think critically and consider various perspectives. Address ethical, political, and socio-economic implications to present a well-rounded view of the topic.

Furthermore, make sure to address any limitations or constraints in your essay. Discuss the factors that may hinder the implementation of certain ideas, and propose suggestions for overcoming these challenges.

Remember, as a discursive writer, your aim is not only to persuade but also to inform and engage your audience. Use language that is clear, concise, and respectful – avoiding any form of abusive or derogatory language. As a responsible writer, it is crucial to consider the ethical and moral considerations when discussing sensitive topics.

Feel free to use the above-discursive writing template as a starting point for your essays. Remember that practice makes perfect, so don’t be afraid to experiment with different structures and styles. Just make sure to follow the basic guidelines and maintain a consistent tone throughout your writing.

Happy writing!

Sample Discursive Writing Template for Academic Essays

The main body of the essay is where the writer presents their arguments and supporting evidence. It is important to start each paragraph with a topic sentence that clearly states the main idea of the paragraph. These topic sentences should be parallel in structure, making it easy for the reader to follow the flow of the essay. Each paragraph should also include relevant examples, facts, and research to support the argument being made.

It is important to note that a discursive essay should consider different points of view on the topic. While the writer may have a specific opinion, it is essential to acknowledge and address opposing viewpoints. This adds credibility to the essay and shows that the writer has taken into consideration various perspectives.

Having a discursive writing template can be helpful for academic essay writing as it provides a clear structure and guidelines to follow. It ensures that the essay is well-organized, logical, and covers all necessary points. With the use of a template, writing academic essays becomes easier and more efficient. Remember to always check for spelling and grammar errors and cite any sources used in the essay.

Discursive Writing Template for Persuasive Arguments

2. Provide a brief background on the topic you will be discussing.

3. Present a clear and concise thesis statement that states your main argument.

4. List the main points or sub-claims that you will be discussing in the body paragraphs.

Body Paragraphs:

1. Start each body paragraph with a topic sentence that states the main point you will be discussing.

2. Use supporting evidence, examples, and research to justify your claims.

3. Although it is important to present counterarguments, make sure to clearly refute them and reinforce your own argument.

4. Make sure to include a variety of sentence types and structures to keep the reader engaged.

1. Summarize your main arguments and restate your thesis statement.

2. Provide a thought-provoking closing statement that leaves a lasting impression on the reader.

By following this template, you will be able to structure your discursive essay in a logical and organized manner. Remember to avoid using a confrontational or aggressive tone in your writing, as this can undermine your argument.

By using this discursive writing template, you will be able to write a persuasive argument that is well-structured, well-supported, and compelling. Good luck with your essay writing!

Sample Discursive Writing Template for Opinion Papers

The body of your paper should be organized in paragraphs, with each paragraph focusing on a specific point or sub-claim. Begin each paragraph with a topic sentence that clearly states the main idea. Then, support your argument with evidence, examples, or facts. Make sure to use clear and concise language to convey your thoughts effectively.

Developing your Points:

When developing your points, it is essential to provide sufficient evidence or reasoning to support your opinions. Use logical arguments and be persuasive in your writing. Each point should be well-developed and backed up by relevant information or examples.

Using this discursive writing template for opinion papers will help you maintain a clear and organized structure throughout your essay. Remember to check for any grammar or spelling errors before submitting your paper. Happy writing!

Discursive Writing Template for Controversial Topics

2. Body paragraphs:

Organize your thoughts into separate paragraphs, each addressing a specific point or argument. Use topic sentences to clearly introduce each paragraph and ensure they are connected to your thesis statement.

3. Main arguments:

Present your main arguments or points in a logical and coherent manner. Back each argument with evidence, examples, or research to support your claims.

4. Counterarguments:

Address and refute counterarguments. Acknowledge opposing viewpoints and provide reasoning to show why your arguments are stronger. This will demonstrate that you have considered multiple perspectives.

6. Language and format:

Use formal language and an academic tone throughout your essay. Avoid using slang or biased language. Make sure to follow proper grammar and punctuation rules.

7. Revise and check:

Before submitting your essay, revise and proofread carefully. Check for any grammar or spelling errors, and ensure that your arguments and evidence are clear and well-supported.

8. Assistance and research:

If needed, seek assistance from others or conduct further research to strengthen your arguments and provide additional evidence or examples.

9. Considerations for controversial topics:

Controversial topics can evoke strong emotions and opinions. Be respectful and considerate when addressing opposing viewpoints. Use logical reasoning and avoid personal attacks or emotional appeals.

10. Developing a strong thesis:

Take time to develop a strong and clear thesis statement that captures the main idea of your essay. Your thesis should be persuasive and specific to guide the direction of your essay.

11. Narrowed focus:

To ensure a focused and coherent essay, narrow down your topic to a specific aspect or angle. This will allow for a more in-depth analysis and discussion.

12. Formatting:

Follow the required formatting guidelines for your essay, such as font size, margins, and citation style. Use headings and subheadings to organize your essay and make it easier to navigate.

By following this discursive writing template, you will be able to effectively address controversial topics in a well-structured and persuasive essay. Remember to carefully plan your essay, gather relevant information, and present your arguments confidently and logically.

+ Sample Report Writing Format

The body of the report is where you present the main points and sub-claims related to your topic. Each paragraph should focus on one specific point and include supporting evidence or examples. The main body should be well-organized, with a logical flow of ideas from one paragraph to the next.

In a discursive report, it is common to present different viewpoints on an issue or topic. You can compare and contrast different opinions, or present arguments for and against a particular point of view. However, it is important to maintain a balanced tone and present the viewpoints in an unbiased manner.

While writing a report, it is important to be concise and clear in your language. Avoid using complex or technical terms unless necessary, and revise your writing to ensure that your sentences are clear and grammatically correct.

What is discursive writing?

Discursive writing is a style of writing that presents an argument or explores a particular topic from multiple perspectives. It involves analyzing and discussing different viewpoints, presenting evidence and examples to support those viewpoints, and arriving at a well-reasoned conclusion.

How can I improve my discursive writing skills?

To improve your discursive writing skills, you can practice by writing essays or articles on various topics. Focus on organizing your thoughts and arguments, presenting different viewpoints, and supporting your claims with evidence. Additionally, reading different discursive essays and analyzing their structure and arguments can also help you improve your own writing.

What are some possible thesis statements in discursive writing?

Some possible thesis statements in discursive writing could include:

1. Should college education be free for all students?

There are valid arguments for and against making college education free for all students. While it would ensure equal opportunity and accessibility, it could also put a strain on the economy and devalue the importance of higher education.

2. Should the government regulate social media platforms?

Regulations on social media platforms can help protect users from harmful content and misinformation, but they could also be seen as a violation of freedom of speech. Striking a balance between protecting users and respecting their rights can be a challenging task.

Alex Koliada, PhD

By Alex Koliada, PhD

Alex Koliada, PhD, is a well-known doctor. He is famous for studying aging, genetics, and other medical conditions. He works at the Institute of Food Biotechnology and Genomics. His scientific research has been published in the most reputable international magazines. Alex holds a BA in English and Comparative Literature from the University of Southern California , and a TEFL certification from The Boston Language Institute.


  1. 😍 Discursive essay on social media. Essay On Social Media And Self

    discursive essay about social media pdf

  2. (PDF) The effect of social media on English second language essay

    discursive essay about social media pdf

  3. 011 Expository Essay About Social Media Sociological Imagination

    discursive essay about social media pdf

  4. Social Media Essay

    discursive essay about social media pdf

  5. Four Ways Social Media enhances Your Writing Skills by Absolute Essays

    discursive essay about social media pdf

  6. What Are The Pros And Cons Of Social Media Essay

    discursive essay about social media pdf


  1. Discursive essay

  2. Discursive Essay

  3. Role of social media ll essay

  4. Advantages of Social Media//English essay writing//English all-rounder by Padhi

  5. essay social media

  6. Social media k fwaid r nuqsanat |Essay |advantages and disadvantages|@aroobatahir619


  1. PDF The social media see-saw: Positive and negative influences on

    Social media really impacts my life a lot, from morning to night. (Hanna, aged 17) Social media is intertwined with daily life—for school-aged teens in developed countries, interacting with and through social media platforms (SMPs) is "just part of [the] routine." Among US-based 13- to 17-year-olds, 94% use one or more SMPs (AP-NORC, 2017b).

  2. Social media Discursive essay

    Technology has advanced over the past decades, rapidly influencing today's social culture. Social media is still developing into many different forms. Those forms can include Smartphone's, computers, laptops, television, and tablets. Whichever the object is, it has also become a form of communication in many different ways. So much of ...

  3. PDF Advanced Self-Access Learning Writing

    • social media • the Internet • online learning 2. Choose one topic from the list above that you find interesting, and use the Internet to research it in English, e.g. social media. This topic will be the subject you will write about in your essay today. Essay title: The impact of [your topic] on society today. • Make notes in English on


    So, the three steps of the discourse have to be considered: production, form and reception. We try to seek out new models that are required to address how the technologies themselves come to shape ...

  5. PDF Qualitative Research on Youths' Social Media Use: A review of the

    Schmeichel, Mardi; Hughes, Hilary E.; and Kutner, Mel (2018) "Qualitative Research on Youths' Social Media Use: A review of the literature," Middle Grades Review: Vol. 4 : Iss. 2 , Article 4. This Research is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Education and Social Services at ScholarWorks @ UVM.

  6. PDF Communicative Strategies of Social Media Discourse

    1.2 Communicative strategies. The purpose of social and communicative interaction between individuals is exchange of information and sense. The form of interaction depends on the motives and objectives, time, nature of social roles, mindset, and culture. The process of communication is structured and follows certain schemes and scenarios ...

  7. Digital meaning-making across content and practice in social media

    In a larger frame, this is about arriving at a viable account of the discursive impact of social media, e.g. how certain D-discourses like populism are normalised as both discursive content in politics and a preferred communicative style (KhosraviNik, Citation 2017b, Citation 2019). In a context where traditions in mass media's impact on ...

  8. (PDF) Critical Discourse Analysis and the challenges and opportunities

    Abstract. Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is a particular strand of discourse analysis that focuses on the role of language in society and in political processes, traditionally targeting texts ...


    Four techno-discursive features are worth considering, according to Marie-Anne Paveau (2012) when the analysis object is the online discourse, for instance the blog, social media, commercial, administrative or institutional websites discourse: (1) delinearization , (2) development or extension, (3) technogenericity and (4) plurisemiotics.

  10. Discursive structures and power relations in Covid-19 knowledge

    The paper critiques two discursive structures of exclusion, the terms science and conspiracy theory, which have characterised the knowledge production discourse of the Covid-19 pandemic on social ...

  11. (PDF) Discourse Communities: From Origins to Social Media

    Abstract. Discourse communities, their characteristic features and communicative routines, have long been a focus of research. The expansion of technology has changed discourse communities ...

  12. PDF Chapter 10: Discourse-Analytical Studies on Social Media ...

    comprehensive picture of discursive practices on social media platforms. Disregarding the socio-political contexts of discourses and solely focusing on broad patterns of communication can lead to misguided conclusions about discourses of and on social media. As boyd and Crawford (2012) argue d, regardless of the size of the data available from ...

  13. Argumentative Essay about Social Media • Free Examples

    Conclusion Example: "Through examining the dual facets of social media in political mobilization, the essay concludes that while social media is a pivotal tool for engagement, it necessitates critical scrutiny of information to ensure a well-informed public discourse." Compare and Contrast Essays. Instagram vs. Twitter: Platforms for Brand ...

  14. Social Media and Public Discourse

    The use of social media features is conceptualized using technology affordance theory. Borrowing from mass communication literature, we argue that media content is produced as a result of a dialectical relationship between media discourse and public opinion. The consequences of social media use on public discourse are conceptualized in terms of ...

  15. Planning a Discursive Essay

    Discursive Essay - Description. A discursive essay is a form of critical essay that attempts to provide the reader with a balanced argument on a topic, supported by evidence. It requires critical thinking, as well as sound and valid arguments (see Chapter 25) that acknowledge and analyse arguments both for and against any given topic, plus ...

  16. PDF Analysing Media Discourse

    Since media became an integral part of social life in the late 19th century, politicians have traditionally used all available tools and mechanisms to get access to media. Gradually a trend of hybridization ... discursive devices are under special focus. The next two papers deal with the role of images in new media discourse.

  17. Discourse Communities: From Origins to Social Media

    1) argue, social media create "artefacts with a networking dimension, which are designed so as to make that dimension central to their use.". Social media provide a communicative medium through which people are rapidly and intensively creating new kinds of discourse communities. These contexts have a number of affordances, features that ...

  18. PDF "Don't Say Gay" : Critical Discourse Analysis on Discursive Structures

    Discursive Structures and Ideologies in U.S. News Coverage of Florida's "Parental Rights in Education" ... (2005), and Hamborg et al (2018). The social and ideological power media have is very significant and is introduced in Section 3.1.2. The second reason behind the topic choice is the importance of versatile education and ...

  19. Social Media Critical Discourse Studies

    Request PDF | On Jan 5, 2023, Majid KhosraviNik published Social Media Critical Discourse Studies | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate

  20. How social media discourses organize communication online: a multi

    Our research showcases a multi-level discursive analysis that enables scholars to see how discourses intertwine to organize communication online, foregrounding theoretical implications about how young people resist and reify certain discourses about social media, as well as how identity and imagined audiences are maintained online.


    Discursive essay on social and pedagogical topics contains valid analytical and communicative potential and thus induces and gives reasons to new prospective thoughts on the problem, namely, its further processing at a higher level of complexity. First of all, we proceed from the standpoint that discursive essay is one of the most effective ...


    The analysis of journalistic discourse and its social embeddedness has known significant advances in the last two decades, especially due to the emergence and development of Critical Discourse Analysis. However, three important aspects remain under-researched: the time plane in discourse analysis, the discursive strategies of social actors, and the extra- and supra-textual effects of mediated ...

  23. Get 5 FREE Sample Discursive Writing Templates in PDF

    FREE Sample Discursive Writing Templates in PDF. When writing a discursive essay, it is crucial to have a clear thesis statement that clearly states your main argument or viewpoint. This statement guides the flow of the essay and helps keep the writer organized. ... Regulations on social media platforms can help protect users from harmful ...